Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
separable from it. Whimsicality, Inc. v. Rubie’s Costume Co., 891 F.2d at 455 (observing that garments’ decorative elements are “particularly unlikely to meet [the] test” of conceptual separability.) No different conclusion is warranted by § 101’s definition of a “useful article” as one having an intrinsic utilitarian function “that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information.” Although Jovani argues that a decoration on a dress necessarily “portrays the appearance” of the dress and, therefore, is outside the scope of usefulness, we have construed this statutory phrase more narrowly to identify only a small category of items whose sole usefulness resides in their appearance. See Hart v. Dan Chase Taxidermy Supply Co., 86 F.3d 320, 323 (2d Cir.1996) ; accord Chosun Int’l Inc. v. Chrisha
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the court may take judicial notice of its own docket
B. holding that lack of standing cannot be waived and may be raised for the first time by an appellate court on its own motion
C. holding that taxidermy mannequin for fish skins has function of portraying its own appearance and therefore may be copyrighted
D. holding that imposition of punishment is a judicial function
E. holding that appellate court may judicially notice its own records
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.