Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of claim construction. 8 . The district court held claim 10 invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) of the America Invents Act ("AIA”). See Multilayer v. Inteplast, 2013 WL 5972195, at *40. 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) replaced the earlier (pre-AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4 when § 4(c) of the America Invents Act ("AIA”), Pub.L. No. 112-29, took effect on September 16, 2012. 125 Stat. 284, 296, 297 (2011). Because the '055 patent was filed in 1999, long before this effective date, pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 4 in fact controls. The district court’s error is harmless, as the AIA did not alter the substance of this provision. 9 . The district court also found that at least some VLDPE and ULDPE resins can also be broadly characterized as LLDPE resins. Id. at *32; see also Multilayer v. Berry, 63 F.Supp.3d at 794 . 10 . Claim 24 does not specify whether the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an ex post facto claim can only be successful if the law can be characterized as punishment in the constitutional sense
B. holding that under the district courts construction of lldpe resins within the classes of mlldpe vldpe and uldpe can also broadly be characterized as lldpe resins
C. holding that the employment of some noncivil servants can properly be characterized as noncommercial
D. holding that nonconsensual oversecured creditor shall receive the statutory rate of interest unless it can be characterized as a penalty
E. recognizing rule of statutory construction that statutes must be read as a whole and sections which are part of the same general statutory scheme must be construed together and each given effect if it can be done by any reasonable construction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.