Task: songer_appel1_7_5

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 

Your task concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". Your task is to determine which of these categories best describes the income of the litigant. Consider the following categories: "not ascertained", "poor + wards of state" (e.g., patients at state mental hospital; not prisoner unless specific indication that poor), "presumed poor" (e.g., migrant farm worker), "presumed wealthy" (e.g., high status job - like medical doctors, executives of corporations that are national in scope, professional athletes in the NBA or NFL; upper 1/5 of income bracket), "clear indication of wealth in opinion", "other - above poverty line but not clearly wealthy" (e.g., public school teachers, federal government employees)." Note that "poor" means below the federal poverty line; e.g., welfare or food stamp recipients. There must be some specific indication in the opinion that you can point to before anyone is classified anything other than "not ascertained". Prisoners filing "pro se" were classified as poor, but litigants in civil cases who proceed pro se were not presumed to be poor. Wealth obtained from the crime at issue in a criminal case was not counted when determining the wealth of the criminal defendant (e.g., drug dealers).

ROBB, Associate Justice.
Appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, refusing to allow certain claims covering a machine for manufacturing cigars, a number of claims having been allowed.
Claims 1 and 11 are illustrative of the several claims and axe here reproduced:
“1. In a cigar machine, the combination, with means for concentrating a bunch to give it temporary set without closing draft passages or producing exterior ridges, of means associated with said concentrating means for immediately applying a wrapper to the concentrated bunch.”
“11. In a cigar machine, the combination, with means for concentrating a bunch to give it temporary set without closing draft passages or producing exterior ridges, of means associated with said concentrating means for immediately applying a wrapper to the concentrated bunch, and means for transporting the bunch from said concentrating means to said wrapper-applying means, and the resultant cigar from 'said wrapper-applying means to a suitable delivery position.”
The claims were rejected on two references — Lacroix, No. 1,128,989, February 16, 1915; and Tyberg, No. 1,075,172, October 7, 1913. The Lacroix patent covers a cigar-making machine very similar to applicant’s,' while the Tyberg patent shows a machine for wrapping cigar bunches, which form of wrapping mechanism applicant employs in his ma- • chine. It is contended that applicant’s machine differs from the machine of Lacroix, in that the bunch is “concentrated” and not compressed ; that in a compressed bunch the draft passages of the cigar are liable to be closed, and the cigar, of course, rendered unfit for use; and that applicant has overcome this difficulty by concentrating the bunch.
The Patent Office tribunals have held that the difference between “compression” and “concentration” is the result of employing a less quantity of filler; in other words, that, if Lacroix should employ the same quantity of filler as is employed by applicant, his machine would do substantially the same work. In the machines of both Lacroix and applicant, the bunch is molded in a form to which heat is applied. The Commissioner said: “Applicant is not entitled to claims which read directly on an old device, which is capable of producing his cigars and will necessarily produce the same product if the right quantity of filler is used.”
A careful reading of applicant’s brief, in connection with his oral argument, has failed to convince us that the Patent Office erred in rejecting the claims involved, and the decision therefore is affirmed.
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". Which of these categories best describes the income of the litigant?
A. not ascertained
B. poor + wards of state
C. presumed poor
D. presumed wealthy
E. clear indication of wealth in opinion
F. other - above poverty line but not clearly wealthy
Answer:

Answer: A