Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
1880, 1888 (Fed.Cir.1998). III Turning first to the summary judgment that claims 1 and 3 of the '880 patent were not infringed, we commence our plenary review of that ruling by determining the proper scope of the claims at issue. TurboCare Div. of Demag Delaval Turbomachinery Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 264 F.3d 1111, 1120, 60 USPQ2d 1017, 1024 (Fed. Cir.2001). Claims 1 and 3 of the '880 patent require a “means for causing said at least one laser beam to strike the periphery of the energy zone for visibly outlining said entire energy zone.” The parties agree that those claims at issue are in means-plus-function format and therefore invoke the provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. See Wenger Mfg., Inc. v. Coating Mach. Sys., Inc., 239 F.3d 1225, 1232, 57 USPQ2d 1679, 1684 (Fed.Cir.2001) . Section 112, paragraph 6, allows a paten-tee
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that if a document falls within the scope of the public records statute then the presumption favoring disclosure applies
B. holding that person as defined in njsa 112 does not include the state based on the fact that 1 the definition of person indicates that such term includes the state when it is used to designate the owner of property which may be the subject of an offense and 2 state and municipality are separately defined in njsa 112
C. holding that as to the scope of court review substantial evidence is a stringent limitation
D. holding that a claim was not indefinite for using the term selector because it was a standard component and its structure was well known in the art
E. holding that claim limitation using the term means for and not reciting any structure presumptively falls within the scope of  112  6
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.