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 the gender of this litigant. Use names to classify the party's sex only if there is little ambiguity (e.g., the sex of "Chris" should be coded as "not ascertained").

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: 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)". What is the gender of this litigant?Use names to classify the party's sex only if there is little ambiguity.

Choices:
not ascertained
male - indication in opinion (e.g., use of masculine pronoun)
male - assumed because of name
female - indication in opinion of gender
female - assumed because of name

Answer: 1