With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". extraction of a product in a manner that retains the character and function of the product as found in nature does not result in the creation of a human invention. That principle was captured by the Supreme Court’s statement in Chakrabarty that the invention in that case was not to “a hitherto unknown natural phenomenon, but to a nonnaturally occurring manufacture or composition of matter ‘having a distinctive name, character [and] use.’ ” 447 U.S. at 309-10, 100 S.Ct. 2204. Cases involving the “purification” of a natural substance employ similar analysis. Our predecessor court recognized that merely purifying a naturally occurring substance does not render the substance patentable unless it results in a marked change in functionality. In re Merz, 25 CCPA 1314, 97 F.2d 599, 601 (1938) (<HOLDING>); see also In re King, 27 CCPA 754, 107 F.2d

A: holding that in context of patent claim at issue if means only if
B: holding that it may not
C: holding in a patent infringement case that plaintiff lacked standing where it held a conditional right to license a patent and enforce license agreements but did not have the right to transfer the patent
D: holding that there was no right to a patent on a purer version of ultramarine but recognizing that if a claimed article is of such purity that it differs not only in degree but in kind it may be patentable
D.