Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
suit. Fourth, the patent explicitly disclaims any relation between Figure 4b and the aspects of the invention dealing with the discharge of the primary switch’s parasitic capacitance. See col. 5, 11. 44-51 (“neglecting ... parasitic effects including the ones associated with ... the capacitance of non-ideal hardware realizations of the primary switch 10 ..., the operation of the magnetizing current mirror as a reset mechanism is illustrated by an example in 4b.”). It is therefore less plausible that the inventor would rely on this figure to define the invention’s switch-timing properties. Finally, Unitrode presses an argument based on claim differentiation for adopting a voltage-based definition for ON period. See Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 987 (Fed.Cir.1988) .* The doctrine of claim differentiation is a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that evidence of the scope of a particular claim can be found on review of other claims
B. holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action
C. holding that the constitutional level of punitive damages is not a finding of fact that must be determined by the jury it may be determined de novo by the court
D. holding that declaratory judgments fall outside the scope of the court of claims jurisdiction
E. holding the scope of a particular claim can often be determined on inspection of other claims
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.