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.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
In re BOYCE.
(Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted January 10, 1927.
Decided February 7, 1927.)
No. 1894.
Patents <@=>91 (4) — Application for patent for device indicating temperature of motors on double dial held anticipated.
Application for patent for device indicating the thermal condition of internal combustion in motors on a double dial held anticipated by prior art.
Appeal fi;om Decision of Commissioner of Patents.
Application for patent by Harrison H. Boyce. From a decision of the Commissioner of Patents, denying his application as to .two claims, applicant appeals.
Affirmed.
J. H. Milans and C. T. Milans, both of Washington, D. C., and E. Q. Moses, of New York City, for appellant.
T. A. Hostetler, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.
Appellant appeals from a decision of the Commissioner'of Patents, denying two claims for an invention relating to temperature indicating devices to be utilized in indicating the thermal condition of internal combustion in motors, aeroplanes, and the like. The claims in issue are as follows:
(3) “In an instrument of the character described, coacting fixed means and movable means for indicating exact temperature, co-acting fixed means and movable means for indicating approximate temperature, and means responsive to temperature variations for simultaneously actuating said movable means.”
(9) “In a temperature indicating instrument for indicating engine temperatures of a motor vehicle engine, the combination of an actuating element within the instrument, movable in response to temperature variations, a rotatable arbor actuated thereby, a dial plate bearing a scale of words designating temperature conditions, an index hand carried by said arbor and adapted to cooperate with said word scale, and means actuated by said arbor in co-operation with said dial for indicating exact temperatures in degrees.”
The object of the invention in issue is to indicate to the driver of a vehicle the thermal condition of the engine. The function of the instrument is dual: (1) To indicate the exact temperature, so as to enable the operator to make proper adjustments of the machine ; and (2) to enable the driver to observe approximately at a glance the temperature, this function serving as a danger signal to the operator. The thermometer or indicator thus contains two scales — an exact numerical scale, indicating the exact heat condition, and the danger signal scale, less exact, but easily read, and merely indicating the approximate condition of the temperature as “cold, cool, warm, hot,” etc.
A number of claims have been allowed for the patent, and the question before us is whether or not the broad claims in issue are allowable in view of the prior art. It will be observed that claim 3 broadly covers any co-acting means for indicating exact or approximate temperatures. This claim, we think, is .as broadly covered in the claims allowed as should he awarded, in view of an' existing patent to Wilbur of February 25, 1896, and a patent to St. John of August 9, 1887. It is true that these prior patents are crude compared with the invention in issue; but the idea of the double dial, indicating exact and approximate temperatures, we think, is sufciently set forth to avoid the right of appellant to claim 3.
Coming to claim 9, whieh was held by the Patent Office to be anticipated by a former patent to appellant dated November 28,1916, we find in the specification upon which that patent was based the following statement:
“My present invention provides means whereby this actual hot-water temperature is indicated at all times, and Whieh will also be subjected to the action of any steam whieh may form in the system. Thus, with this invention, it is possible to secure an indication of actual water temperature without sacrifie- ‘ ing the advantages of obtaining immediate knowledge of the condition of damages suggested by the formation of steam.”
Further describing this former invention, appellant says:
“I am by these means enabled to obtain a relative indication of the temperature of the cooling water and also obtain a danger signal immediately upon the formation of steam in the system, whieh steam passes into the air space, thus causing a sudden increase in the temperature indication of the instrument.”
While claim 9 restricts the device to registering engine temperatures of motor vehicles, it will be observed that this function was fully embraced in appellant’s 1916 patent. The only difference between that construction and the construction set forth in claim 9 is that appellant is now applying the double indicating dial feature, whieh, as we have said, is anticipated by St. John and Wilbur.
The decision of the Commissioner of Patents is affirmed.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 0