With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". need not demonstrate that one or more prior art references literally contain all of the claim elements and limitations in the patents alleged to be invalid. The moving party need only establish that the prior art “would have rendered the invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.” Al-Site, 174 F.3d at 1323. Whereas a claim of invalidity for anticipation must necessarily focus upon whether claim limitations are met literally by the prior art, an obviousness analysis requires a more holistic approach encompassing a general examination of the prior art and an analysis of the degree to which they prefigure or suggest the patent claims at issue. Compare Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>), with Al-Site, 174 F.3d at 1323. With this

A: holding that a found in indictment need not allege all of the elements of entry
B: holding prior publication must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim internal citations omitted
C: holding that invalidity for anticipation requires that all of the elements and limitations of the challenged claim are found within a single prior art reference
D: holding that the plaintiffs failure to meet any one of the elements requires dismissal of claim
C.