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:
AMERICAN HOIST & DERRICK COMPANY and T. S. DeCuir, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees, v. The MANITOWOC COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant.
Nos. 78-1523, 78-1524.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued Jan. 10, 1979.
Decided July 30, 1979.
Glen O. Starke, Andrus, Sceales, Starke & Sawall, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiffs-appellants, cross-appellees.
Philip H. Mayer, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellee, cross-appellant.
Before SWYGERT and BAUER, Circuit Judges, and EAST, District Judge.
Honorable William G. East, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM.
In these alleged patent infringement proceedings, the plaintiffs American Hoist & Derrick Company and T. S. DeCuir appeal from the judgment dismissing the action entered by the District Court on February 27, 1978. The defendant The Manitowoc Company, Inc. cross-appeals from a separate judgment of even date dismissing its counterclaims.
We note jurisdiction and for the valid reasons stated in the District Court’s opinion, 448 F.Supp. 1372 (E.D.Wis.1978), the several judgments are each affirmed. We are satisfied that the District Court’s opinion provides sufficient and correct answers to the various contentions of the appellants and cross-appellant on this appeal.
We do note, however, a strained and inconsequential inconsistency in the District Court’s opinion. The District Court first opined, 448 F.Supp. at 1383-84:
“The issue, as I view it, is whether the roller carrier of the accused Ringer cranes constitutes ‘a platform mounted for horizontal rotation.’ I find that it is. The roller carrier rides atop the encircling ring, thereby providing horizontal rotation. The mast and boom are pivotally mounted to the roller carrier, which serves as a platform. Therefore, I find that the mast and boom are pivotally mounted on a platform for horizontal rotation, as described in the DeCuir patent.”
And inconsistently at 1384:
“To summarize, all of the accused Ringer cranes lack two of the elements described in claim 12 of the DeCuir patent: (1) ‘mobile support means,’ and (2) a mast and boom pivotally mounted on the platform. Furthermore, two of the accused Ringer crane models, the 4600 Series II and III, lack power means for pivoting the mast. Accordingly, I find that the accused cranes do not infringe claim 12 of the DeCuir patent.”
In view of the opinion as a whole, we take the District Court’s language “(2) a mast and boom pivotally mounted on the platform” to infer that the word “platform” was intended to mean a mobile platform. The boom and mast on the Ringer crane are pivoted on a boom carrier which rides directly on the ring which, however, is immobile during lifts.
Furthermore the District Court concluded, 448 F.Supp. at 1384, that:
“Since claim 13, referring to the ‘mast and boom stop means,’ and claim 14, referring to a means connected to the boom for supporting a load, incorporate by reference the apparatus claimed in claim 12, there can be no infringement of those claims either. 35 U.S.C. § 112.”
To find infringement, the Court must determine that every element of a claim alleged to be infringed must be found in the accused device, Mobil Oil Corp. v. Filtrol Corp., 501 F.2d 282, 291 (9th Cir. 1974)— that the accused device is a copy “either without variation, or with such variations as are consistent with its being in substance the same thing.” Engelhard Industries, Inc. v. Research Instrumental Corp., 324 F.2d 347, 351 (9th Cir. 1963), quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 573, 17 L.Ed. 661 (1863). Therefore, even if only one of the two or three reasons for non-infringement is sustained, the conclusion of non-infringement remains intact.
The judgments of the District Court are affirmed.
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