Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
digital at the outset. Ion has failed to rebut this argument. Ion makes two arguments for limitations based on language found within the specification. First, Ion points to language from the specification that both introduces the patent and comments on its preferred embodiment. Ion argues that this language necessarily narrows the dictionary definition of “value” because the specification disavows certain forms that a value can take. If language within the specification disclaims a usage or distinguishes its patent application from prior art on the basis of a different type of use, the claim construction should reflect these self-imposed limitations. See CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1367; SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1340-1341 (Fed.Cir.2001) . It must therefore be determined whether ITW
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the language of the arbitration clause   any controversy or claim arising out of     was broad enough to encompass the plaintiffs claim alleging fraud in the inducement of the contract
B. holdingthat the language of an arbitration clause applying to all claims demands disputes or controversies of every kind or nature that may arise  concerning the vehicle was not ambiguous and was broad enough to encompass the claims at issue
C. holding that when language is exactly the same in two statutory provisions the meaning of that language is also identical
D. holding that there was no jurisdictional defect when the language of the charging document tracked the statutory language even though the facts proffered at the plea hearing were insufficient to establish that the defendant committed the crime
E. holding that when the specification clearly disavows a feature that feature is outside the reach of the claim language even if the language might otherwise be broad enough to encompass the feature in question
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.