With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". As stated in Heioleth-Packard, “A seller’s intent, unless embodied in an enforceable contract, does not create a limitation on the right of a purchaser to use, sell, or modify a patented product as long as a reconstruction of the patented combination is avoided.” 123 F.3d at 1453, 43 USPQ2d at 1658. We do not discern an enforceable restriction on the reuse of these cameras based on the package statements. These statements are instructions and warnings of risk, not mutual promises or a condition placed upon the sale. See id. at 1447-48, 1453, 123 F.3d 1445, 43 USPQ2d at 1652-53, 1657 (refusing implicit limit on modification of cartridges designed to be non-refillable and sold with instructions warning against reuse or refilling); Kendall Co., 85 F.3d at 1576, 38 USPQ2d at 1922 (<HOLDING>). These package instructions are not in the

A: holding that failure to request jury instruction about manner in which evidence was obtained was not error and thus did not constitute ineffective assistance because defendant was not entitled to instruction
B: holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in vested contractual rights
C: holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given
D: holding that instruction meant to ensure product safety and efficiency did not have contractual significance
D.