With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Pencil Co. v. Howard, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 498, 507, 22 L.Ed. 410 (1874); see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185, 101 S.Ct. 1048, 1056, 67 L.Ed.2d 155 (1981) (citing cases). Accordingly, Congress has authorized the protection of the embodiment of an idea, the expression of an idea, a process, a design, or a product. A product’s different aspects can be protected simultaneously by more than one of the statutory means for the protection of intellectual property. See, e.g., Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 154, 165-67, 109 S.Ct. 971, 979, 985-86, 103 L.Ed.2d 118 (1989) (patent laws do not conflict with trademark protection and unfair competition laws); Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 476-478, 94 S.Ct. 1879, 1883-84, 40 L.Ed.2d 315 (1974) (<HOLDING>); Application of Mogen David Wine Corp., 328

A: holding that the two elements of a copyright infringement claim are 1 the plaintiff owns a valid copyright right and 2 the defendants copied constituent elements of the work that are original
B: recognizing tort of palming off even where article at issue not protected by federal copyright law
C: recognizing that patent protection extends to elements not protected adequately by copyright
D: recognizing that copyright offices interpretation of copyright act should ordinarily receive deference
C.