Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
multiple glow plugs in the diesel engine system, leading to the clear conclusion that there are multiple “voltage signals.” As such, the intrinsic evidence makes clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art that “a voltage signals” should be construed as “voltage signals” in the context of the ’258 Patent whose claims are directed to vehicles with “one or more glow plugs.” See ’258 Patent 23:33-36. Defendants argue that because the ’258 Patent’s prosecution history does not “suggest whether the applicants intended ‘a voltage signals’ to be singular or plural,” this history dictates that the Court should not correct “a voltage signals.” However, a prosecution history that is silent on a claim term does not prevent a court from correcting a grammatical error. See Novo, 350 F.3d at 1354 . Because the Court finds that this
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a court can correct a patent claim for a grammatical error where the prosecution history does not suggest a different interpretation of the claims
B. holding that claim 22 which depends from nonexistent claim 38 could be corrected because the error in the dependency was evident based on the face of the patent and that the correct antecedent claim was apparent from the prosecution history
C. holding a technical term used in a patent document is interpreted as having the meaning that it would be given by persons experienced in the field of the invention unless it is apparent from the patent and the prosecution history that the inventor used the term with a different meaning
D. holding that prosecution history will limit the interpretation of claim terms so as toexclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution
E. holding that in order to understand patent claims a court can take instruction from the other claims the specification and the prosecution history
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.