What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals. You will be asked a question pertaining to issues that may appear in civil law issues involving government actors. The issue is: "Did the court conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion. Answer the question based on the directionality of the appeals court decision. If the court discussed the issue in its opinion and answered the related question in the affirmative, answer "Yes". If the issue was discussed and the opinion answered the question negatively, answer "No". If the opinion considered the question but gave a mixed answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part, answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion does not discuss the issue, or notes that a particular issue was raised by one of the litigants but the court dismissed the issue as frivolous or trivial or not worthy of discussion for some other reason, answer "Issue not discussed". If the opinion considered the question but gave a "mixed" answer, supporting the respondent in part and supporting the appellant in part (or if two issues treated separately by the court both fell within the area covered by one question and the court answered one question affirmatively and one negatively), answer "Mixed answer". If the opinion either did not consider or discuss the issue at all or if the opinion indicates that this issue was not worthy of consideration by the court of appeals even though it was discussed by the lower court or was raised in one of the briefs, answer "Issue not discussed".

Opinion:
DE VRY CORPORATION v. ACME MOTION PICTURE PROJECTOR CO. (three cases).
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
December 8, 1925.)
Nos. 3566-3568.
Patents <©=>328 — No. 1,287,576, claims 1-4, No. 1,303,542, claims 1-8, No. 1,303,543, claims 1-10, 17, 18, for motion picture projectors, held invalid for lack of invention.
Patents No. 1,287,576, claims 1-4, No. 1,303,-542, claims 1-8, No. 1,303,543, claims 1-10, 37, 3.8, for motion picture projectors, held invalid for lack of invention.
Appeals from the District Court of the United States for the Eastern Division of the Northern District of Illinois.
Suits hv the De Vry Corporation against the Acme Motion Picture Projector Company. Decrees for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Fred Gerlach, of Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Luther Johns, of Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before ALSCHULER, PAGE, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
ANDERSON, Circuit Judge.
These appeals were heard together on one record. The claims relied on in No. 3566 are 1, 2, 3, and 4 of patent No. 1,287,576, in No. 3567 1 to 8 of patent. No. 1,303,542, and in No. 3568 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,17, and 18 of patent No. 1,303,543, all"issued to the appellant as assignee of Herman De Vry. The court below dismissed all the bills for want of equity.
. The patents relate to motion picture projectors, and have for their object the production of a kind of projector known as the suit case, or self-contained, type. Appellant contends that “the patents in suit are for the first successfully self-contained, or suit case, portable projector.” All of the elements of the claims are old. The invention is said to reside in the combination of those elements. The insistence is that De Vry was the first p.erson to successfully put these elements into a practicable portable container.- Each element functions in the container just as it does when not in a container. The bringing together of these elements and arranging them so that they are ready, while in the container, to perform their old and well-known functions, is not invention. It is mere aggregation.
The deeree is affirmed.

Question: Did the court conclude that it should defer to agency discretion? For example, if the action was committed to agency discretion.

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 3