Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
has come to be so closely associated with ‘means-plus-function’ claiming that it is fair to say that the use of the term ‘means’ ... generally invokes 112(6) and that the use of a different formulation generally does not”). Intel next argues that the functional language used in the claims does not equate to means-plus-function. See Greenberg, 91 F.3d at 1583 (“The fact that a particular mechanism ... is defined in functional terms is not sufficient to convert a claim element containing that term into a ‘means for performing a specified function’ within the meaning of 112(6)”). Rather, because each of the three terms at issue “has a reasonably well understood meaning in the art” as the name for a structure, 112, ¶ 6 should not apply. Id.; see also Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 705 . Last, Intel contends that when a claim
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the function of a public utility is controlling not how the term is defined
B. holding that use of term black box did not render the claim indefinite because that term was known in the field to represent video standard detector circuitry
C. holding that when a term is not defined in a contract the presumption is that the term is to be given its ordinary meaning and significance
D. holding that what is important is not simply that the element at issue is defined in terms of what it does but that the term as the name for a structure has a reasonably well understood meaning in the art
E. holding that detector is a sufficiently definite structural term to preclude the application of 112  6 even though the detector was defined in terms of its function because the term detector refers to a wellknown structure for those knowledgeable in the art
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.