Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that the “fast-steering” language of the claim preamble is not a limitation of any of the claims. See STX LLC v. Brine Inc., 54 USPQ2d 1347, 1349 (Fed.Cir.2000) (“The fact that the first squeezes that formed the basis of the commercial offer to sell might not have exhibited the desired degree of ‘improved playing and handling’ characteristics ... is irrelevant, not least because the preamble to claim 1 is not a limitation.”). Nor should the court consider things like the alleged “operator friendly” characteristics of the ’220 trowel that do not appear in the claims. Finally, the court should appreciate that experimentation and modification of non-claimed features of the Red Rider will not necessarily preclude the finding of an on-sale bar. See Theis, 610 F.2d at 793, 204 USPQ at 194 . 4. Marking Bartell argues that the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the same with respect to violations of the fifth amendment
B. holding the same with respect to an apartment
C. holding that under privacy act federal government waived its sovereign immunity with respect to actual damages but not with respect to damages for mental or emotional distress
D. holding that experimental use  does not apply to experiments performed with respect to nonclaimed features of an invention
E. holding to that effect with respect to rule 64
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.