Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Claim Constr. Reply 2. Thus Aspex’s own reasoning acknowledges that, if the magnetic members of claim 18 of the '545 patent are limited to horizontal orientation, as the court held that they are, Aspex IV, 2007 WL 2984673, at *23, the scope of claim 18 of the '545 patent is not the same as that of claim 2 of the '207 patent, because the former’s magnetic members are limited to horizontal orientation while the latter’s do not contain this limitation. Because claim 18 of the '545 reissue patent contains a limitation not present in claim 2 of the original '207 patent — that the magnetic members possess horizontal orientation and thus engage vertically— and this limitation affects the scope of the claims, these two claims are not substantially identical. See Laitram Corp., 163 F.3d at 1348 ; Bloom Eng’g, 129 F.3d at 1251 (holding that
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that original claim was not substantially identical to reissue claim because original claim covered printer that generated any quality of alphanumeric characters while reissue claim covered printer that generated a particular kind of alphanumeric characters type quality alphanumeric characters
B. holding that a negligence claim is not a personal injury tort claim
C. holding that breach of contract claim related back to misrepresentation claim because operative facts upon which the breach of contract claim was based were contained in the misrepresentation counts of the original complaint
D. holding that defendants were not prejudiced by amendments to an employment discrimination claim because the original claim gave notice of the nature of the case
E. holding plaintiffs claim barred because she failed to take the minimal steps necessary to preserve each claim by either requesting a stay pending administrative proceedings or amending her original claim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.