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)", specifically "manufacturing". Your task is to determine what subcategory of business best describes this litigant.

Opinion:
The CHEMITHON CORPORATION, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. The PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, and the Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company, Appellees and Cross-Appellants.
Nos. 13325, 13326.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued April 8, 1970.
Decided June 2, 1970.
William A. Marshall, Chicago, 111. (Charles J. Merriam, Alvin D. Shulman, and Merriam, Marshall, Shapiro & Klose, Chicago, 111., H. Vernon Eney and Venable, Baetjer & Howard, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellant.
George B. Finnegan, Jr., New York City (William D. Denson, Jerome G. Lee and Morgan, Finnegan, Durham & Pine, New York City, William A. Grimes and Ober, Grimes & Shriver, Baltimore, Md., on brief), for appellees and cross-appellants.
Before SOBELOFF, WINTER and BUTZNER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Chemithon Corporation, holder of United States patents 3,024,258 and 3,-058,920, for making synthetic detergents, brought this action against Procter & Gamble Company, charging infringement of its patents and misappropriation of its trade secrets. P & G challenged the validity of the patents and sought attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
The district court held that P & G used the processes claimed by the patents for more than a year before Chemithon filed its applications, and that its use was public within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Consequently, the court held the patents invalid. It also held that P & G had not misappropriated Chemithon’s trade secrets, but it denied P & G’s request for attorneys’ fees. In reaching these conclusions the district judge applied correct principles of law to findings of fact that are amply supported by the evidence. Finding neither error nor abuse of discretion, we affirm on the opinion of the district court. Chemithon Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 287 F.Supp. 291 (D.Md.1968).
Affirmed.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)", specifically "manufacturing". What subcategory of business best describes this litigant?

Choices:
auto
chemical
drug
food processing
oil refining
textile
electronic
alcohol or tobacco
other
unclear

Answer: 8