What was the CONCLUSION $($holding$,$ decision$)$ in the Alice Corporation Ltd v CLS Bank International case?

Multiple choice question.

Against CLS Bank. The claims are non$-$patentable instructions for intermediated settlement using an unspecified, generic computer.

For Alice. The claims are patentable process instructions to apply intermediated settlements using a computer.

For CLS Bank. The claims are patentable process instructions to apply intermediated settlements using a computer.

Against Alice. The claims are non$-$patentable abstract ideas of intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer.