Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Because we agree with the district court that the inner layers of claim 1 must be construed as closed to unrecited resins, including LDPE, we see no error in the district court’s conclusion that dependent claim 10 is invalid. Independent claim 1 excludes LDPE from the inner layers, while dependent claim 10 includes it. As such, claim 10 is inconsistent with claim 1 and, indeed, contradicts claim 1. A dependent claim that contradicts, rather than harrows, the claim from which it depends is invalid. See 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) (requiring that “a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed” (emphasis added)); Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1291-92 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ; Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that only the words step for raise the presumption that 35 usc  112  6 applies
B. holding a claim invalid under preaia 35 usc  112  4 for claiming subject matter that was nonoverlapping with the claim from which it depended
C. holding that jurisdiction to hear appeal from resolution of a rule 35 motion arises under 18 usc  3742 rather than 28 usc  1291
D. holding that an original claim sufficiently described itself and that njothing more is necessary for compliance with the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 usc  112
E. holding that the argument that an additional limitation be read into claims 1 3 and 4 was only correct with respect to claim 1 and thus only claim 1 was invalid
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.