Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
755 F.2d 158, 163, 225 USPQ 34, 38 (Fed.Cir.1985); see also Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955, 963, 1 USPQ2d 1196, 1201 (Fed.Cir.1986) (excusing failure to make express findings as to the level of ordinary skill where there is no showing that the court’s failure to make such a finding influenced the ultimate determination). In this case, Okajima stated during the final hearing that there was no dispute that the level of skill was high. Where the parties agree that the level of skill in the art is high, any finding by the Board that the proper level of skill is less than that urged by the parties would only reinforce the Board’s conclusion of nonobviousness. See Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1574, 230 USPQ 81, 88 (Fed.Cir.1986) . Accordingly, we find no harm under the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the determination is an equitable one
B. recognizing that particular findings as to level of skill do not influence the ultimate determination under  103 where there is a determination that an invention would have been nonobvious to those of extraordinary skill
C. holding that this court should review de novo ultimate determination of reasonableness of search under fourth amendment
D. holding that courts may decline to make a constitutional determination at the first stage of the qualified immunity inquiry where that determination would be based on an interpretation of uncertain state law
E. holding the findings of fact required to support an alimony award are sufficient if findings of fact have been made on the ultimate facts at issue in the case and the findings of fact show the trial court properly applied the law in the case
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.