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.

L. HAND, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). We cannot accept Noe’s patent as valid prior art. The plaintiff’s strictures upon it may be well founded, and, if the ease turned upon it, we should require the assistance of persons more adept in mechanics than ourselves. In. short, the issue would have to be tried. As to the other three patents, about which no such question is raised, and which are understandable as they stand, we accept the request made at the argument, and treat them as though properly in evidence here.
Of these, Langslow and Kleinbaum seem to us complete anticipations, but for the fact that the devices are at the foot of the stile. Kleinbaum indeed could not have placed them anywhere else, as he disclosed a revolving door. Passing this difference for the moment, we can see no distinction in the fact that the withdrawal means is electric. Perey claimed this feature generally, and his claim would certainly cover both disclosures. Nor does it seem to us that the conversion by Kleinbaum of a mechanical into an electric cheek is a patentable distinction. The defendant borrows nothing of the patent in that regard, and the claim, to cover at all, must be generalized quite beyond the disclosure.
Therefore all that is left is the fact that bolt and notch and automatic cheek are gathered up close to the arms, with advantage in solidity, in convenience of access, and in avoiding obstacles to the feet of passers. The defendant insists that this feature is not in the claim, but on that we cannot agree. The “single rotatable member” of. the claim contains the arms and the notches. The bolt must be close by, because it engages the notches, and the check must operate on the bolt. Whatever advantages the consolidation of all these parts contributed it seems to us fair to impute to the claim.
We will not say that such improvements in design could never make an invention. Absolutes are dangerous, especially when one is talking of invention. An immediate acceptance of the stile by the art, to ,the exclusion of all older forms, might conceivably prove that what had long been craved was at length contrived. But such eases must be rare, especially when the idea has already been abundantly illustrated. Vide Williams, Beerbower, Brenizer, and Driver. One may add to solidity by diminishing the leverage, as well as by increasing the size. One may remove obstacles to the feet by raising them above the feet, and make parts more accessible by putting them where they can be reached.- In all this we can see nothing but routine designing.
Thus we cannot agree that the case may hang by so slight a thread. Though the art was full of stiles, and any new design might presumptively demand som'e originality, there is a vanishing point even in such a setting, a point which, to be visible, at least demands evidence from more success than this invention has enjoyed. We are confirmed in our conclusion by the fact that all the references, except Ellison, on which we rely, were unknown to the Examiner.
Decree reversed.

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: G