With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of Sections 102(a) and 102(b), it is worth noting that such documentation is not evidence about the handling of Delphi materials prior to 1993 or 1994. However, while Defendants’ evidence is by no means “overwhelming,” the record, nevertheless, contains admissible and corroborated evidence that Delphi was in existence prior to 1992, and that at least one individual outside of Morgan Stanley received a description and a demonstration of Delphi software in either 1993 or 1994. While the corroboration does not extend nearly so far as the testimony of Avesta employees who were formerly associated wit emonstration of mechanized tobacco harvester, without any promise of secrecy, constituted public use of invention under Section 102(b)); In re Kaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1372-74 (Fed.Cir. 1983) (<HOLDING>); Faulkner v. Baldwin Piano & Organ Co., 561

A: holding trial court erred by imposing sanctions under section 9 of civil practice and remedies code because claim for sanctions was based solely on section 10 of code and rule 13 of rules of civil procedure
B: holding that a computerized printout with the heading dci record and containing various identifying characteristics of the defendant was competent to prove prior convictions
C: holding that employees approval is not required under section 207k system
D: holding that prior demonstration of computerized supermarket upc code system was prior use under meaning of section 102b
D.