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 "private business (including criminal enterprises)". Your task is to classify the scope of this business into one of the following categories: "local" (individual or family owned business, scope limited to single community; generally proprietors, who are not incorporated); "neither local nor national" (e.g., an electrical power company whose operations cover one-third of the state); "national or multi-national" (assume that insurance companies and railroads are national in scope); and "not ascertained".

Opinion:
In re BROWN.
Court of Appeals of District of Columbia.
Submitted Nov. 15, 1928.
Decided Dec. 3, 1928.
No. 2090.
R. K. Stevens, of Washington, D. C., and A. B. Marvin, D. V. Mahoney, and George J. Hesselman, all o'f 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.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Patent Appeals rejecting claims 1 and 2 and claims 10 to 17 of appellant’s application for a patent on an invention relating to a dry cell battery “depolarizing mixture consisting essentially of oxide of carbon and a conductive carbon intimately mixed.” The application also embraces a method of preparing the mixture by a milling operation.
Claims 1 and 2 read as follows:
“1. In the preparation of a battery de-polarizer, the step which consists in milling particles of conductive carbon having shells of oxide of carbon to strip the shells from the particles and secure intimate contact between said materials.
“2. In the preparation of a battery de-polarizer, the step which consists in milling particles of conductive carbon having shells of oxidized carbonaceous material.”
These claims were rejected on a patent to one Weiss issued May 10,1921, wherein the milling operation described is similar, the' principal distinction being that appellant uses oxide of carbon while Weiss uses manganese dioxide. Weiss describes the conductive material as “graphite or lampblack,” while appellant in his specification uses “graphite and conductive carbon.” It was held by the tribunals below that the substitution of one oxide by another does not constitute invention, and this holding is emphasized by reference to a patent to one Holmes, issued July 16, 1918, wherein the conducting body is described as “graphite or other form of carbon.”
Appellant’s process of milling described in claims 1 and 2, though producing different material, did not entitle appellant to a patent on the old process of Weiss, especially in view of the admission of the appellant that the material he produces is covered by broad claims which have been allowed in his eopending application No. 42090.
Claims 10 to 17, which were rejected on the ground that they claimed an article by the process of manufacture, are sufficiently described in claim 10 as follows: “10. A depolarizing mixture for electric batteries comprising the intimate mixture obtained by the joint milling of an oxide of carbon and conductive carbon.” These claims state a milling process by which the product is obtained. In other words, it is an attempt to define a product by the process of -manufacture. Claims 1 and 2 describe the product, and are not therefore process claims; while claims 10 to 17 describe the process of producing the product. It is a well-settled rule of patent law that claims for a product which is defined by the process of producing it will not be allowed; and the only exception to this rule seems to be in eases where the product involves invention and cannot be defined except by the process used in its creation. In extreme eases of this character, the product claims may be allowed; but that is not this case, especially in view of the broad claims allowed appellant in his copending application No. 42090.
The decision of the Board of Patent Appeals is affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What is the scope of this business?

Choices:
local
neither local nor national
national or multi-national
not ascertained

Answer: 3