Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of section 121. Prior to the 1952 Patent Act, no protection was afforded to patent applications filed as a result of a restriction requirement — referred to at the time as a “requirement for division” — and such applications were often rejected or held invalid on double patenting grounds. See Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH v. N. Petrochemical Co., 784 F.2d 351, 358 (Fed.Cir.1986) (“SGK”) (Newman, J., concurring); In re Eisler, 40 C.C.P.A. 913, 203 F.2d 726 (1953). Thus, although a requirement for division embodied a determination by the PTO that the patent application contained more than one patentably distinct invention, such a determination did not protect the divisional application from rejection on grounds of double patenting. In re Isherwood, 46 App.D.C. 507, 512 (D.C.Cir.1917) . The PTO and the courts were therefore not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there is no constitutional or statutory requirement that a defendants trial take place in a specific courtroom or division within a federal district and that the jury pool need not include anyone from the division in which the crime occurred
B. holding that the attorney generals decision not to provide representation to an employee is reviewable by the appellate division not by the law division where the actions against the employee are pending
C. holding that reconsideration of the correctness of property division was barred on appeal from the judgment enforcing that division
D. holding that court lacked jurisdiction on appeal from injunction because the order was simply an interpretation of an earlier order
E. holding that an examiner is not estopped from rejecting a divisional application because of an earlier requirement for division
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.