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 support the decision of an administrative law judge? 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:
JAX ICE & COLD STORAGE CO., a Corporation, Trading as Jax Brewing Company, Appellant, v. Conway P. COE, United States Commissioner of Patents, and Jackson Brewing Company, a Corporation, Appellees.
No. 7554.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Argued Nov. 12, 1940.
Decided Dec. 9, 1940.
Writ of Certiorari Denied April 7, 1941.
See 61 S.Ct. 837, 85 L.Ed.-.
Thomas L. Mead, Jr., of Washington, D. C., and Ernest P. Rogers, of Atlanta, Ga., for appellant.
W. W. Cochran, U. S. Patent Office, R. F. Whitehead, and Herbert H. Porter, all of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before STEPHENS, VINSON, and EDGERTON, Associate Justices.
PER CURIAM.
This case is governed by Coe v. Hobart Manufacturing Company, 70 App.D.C. 2, 102 F.2d 270, and J. C. Eno (U.S.) Limited v. Coe, 70 App.D.C. 337, 106 F.2d 858. We have carefully considered the earnest and thoughtful argument of appellant’s counsel that we should overrule those cases, but we are still of opinion that they were rightly decided.
The judgment appealed from is therefore affirmed.

Question: Did the court support the decision of an administrative law judge?

Choices:
No
Yes
Mixed answer
Issue not discussed

Answer: 3