Task: songer_genresp1

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.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
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 is to determine the nature of the first listed respondent.

PRETTYMAN, Associate Justice.
Appellant secured a patent on a torque wrench. Later he applied for a reissue of the patent. The specification and drawings of the original patent remained unchanged in the reissue application, but that application contained five new claims. It was rejected by the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office. Appellant filed an action in the District Court under Section 4915 of the Revised Statutes. The court dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed.
The specification and drawings reveal a torque measuring wrench, consisting of a head (designed to engage a nut or a bolt) and a handle, connected by a flexible steel bar, and an indicator. When the wrench is used to tighten a nut or bolt, the pressure applied to the handle causes the spring bar to flex, and the indicator shows the amount of the pressure. The head is rigidly connected to one end of the steel bar, and the handle is rigidly connected to the other end.
The new claims in the reissue application say that the head (work-engaging member) is “pivotally supported” adjacent one end of the handle, “rotatably mounted” with respect to the handle, and “pivotally connected” with the handle. Appellant says that one essential characteristic of a torque measuring wrench is a pivotal movement of the handle with respect to the head, that otherwise there is no means for measuring the pressure being applied. He says that this pivotal movement constitutes a pivotal support or pivotal connection between the head and the handle.
We think the terms “pivotally supported”, “rotatably mounted”, and “pivotally connected” are structural terms. Structurally speaking, there is no pivotal connection or support between the head and the handle in this wrench; both connections are rigid. It is true that the slight movement of the handle with respect to the head, permitted by the flexing of the spring bar, might be described as “pivotal”, in that “pivotal” might be used to describe any axial movement of one body in relation to another. But “pivotal” used in that sense does not describe the structure, or the manner in which the members are “supported”, “mounted” or “connected” in relation to one another. Thus, a gate mounted only on a spring might be said to have a pivotal movement with respect to the gatepost. But a spring is not a pivot, and spring construction is not pivotal connection.
Appellant copied his new claims from a patent issued to one Zimmerman, in order that an interference proceeding might be instituted. He says that if the head in the Zimmerman patent is pivotally connected or pivotally supported in relation to the handle, the same is true of his patent. Examination of the Zimmerman patent, however, discloses that the working member is a rotatable stud which moves in a boss on the head of the wrench. Thus, there is a pivotal construction in the connection or support of the working member in relation to the rest of that wrench.
In the view which we take, it is unnecessary to discuss the other points presented by the parties.
Affirmed.
35 U.S.C.A. § 63.

Question: What is the nature of the first listed respondent?
A. private business (including criminal enterprises)
B. private organization or association
C. federal government (including DC)
D. sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
E. state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
F. government - level not ascertained
G. natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
H. miscellaneous
I. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: C