Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
by Dixon, Todd Rounds (“Rounds”), and Camacho)); (Id. Ex. 49, ECF No. 191^2 (Declaration and Power of Attorney for Patent Application '855 signed by Camacho, Dale Johnson, and Mark Sasaki)) Those signed declarations recite that the signing parties are the only joint inventors on the '629 and '855 Patents; Lindquist is not listed as a joint inventor. Subsequently, however, Camacho and Rounds testified that Lindquist too had a role in the design of the patented invention. (Kneafsey Decl. Ex. 19, at 392-93, ECF No. 175-25); (Id. Ex. 24, at 9, ECF No. 175-30 (deposition transcript of Rounds)) “Thus, there is flatly contradictory evidence relating to the matter critical for determining whether the ['629 and '855 Patents are] invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(f).” Checkpoint, 412 F.3d at 1338 . Accordingly, the Court finds there is a
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment
B. holding that unsupported allegations or denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of summary judgment
C. holding that a speculative affidavit which contained mere conjecture was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial
D. holding that signed declarations to the pto reciting that the signing parties are the only joint inventors despite testimony from coinventors to the contrary created a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment
E. holding that the original pto declarations create a genuine issue of material fact
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.