Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
used in practice”). Further, the district court’s reliance on the testimony of MEEI’s patent law expert to support its conclusion that Dr. Levy made a significant contribution is misplaced. The patent law expert testified that a proposed experiment to test 200 mW/cm2, 250 mW/cm2, 300 mW/cm2, and 600 mW/cm2 could not serve as the basis for conception of a range of 300 mW/cm2 to 900 mW/cm2 because the experiments did not test beyond 600 mW/ cm2. Based on this testimony, the district court improperly concluded that an inventor must actually test at 900 mW/cm2 to conceive a range of 300 mW/cm2 to 900 mW/cm2. Testing at exactly the end points of a range is not necessarily required for a conception of that range. See Ralston Purina Co. v. Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575 (Fed.Cir.1985) . Because a trier of fact could conclude that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an agreed order with a state administrative agency was a public record and thus did not need to be disclosed
B. holding that an applicants failure to include specific issues in his petition for review results in abandonment of any claims of error he might have raised regarding the decisions related to those issues
C. holding that an agency need not credit an applicants explanations for inconsistencies in the record unless those explanations would compel a reasonable factfinder to do so
D. holding that ranges found in an applicants claims need not correspond exactly to those disclosed in a parent application
E. holding that the agency need not credit an applicants explanations unless those explanations would compel a reasonable factfinder to do so
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.