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 "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". Your task is to determine the gender of this litigant. Use names to classify the party's sex only if there is little ambiguity (e.g., the sex of "Chris" should be coded as "not ascertained").

Opinion:
Vincent W. ECKEL, Appellant, v. David L. LADD, Commissioner of Patents, Appellee.
No. 19105.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
June 3, 1965.
Petition for Rehearing Denied June 28, 1965.
Certiorari Denied Nov. 8, 1965.
See 86 S.Ct. 243.
Mr. William Douglas Sellers, Pasadena, Cal., with whom Messrs. George A. Brace, Pasadena, Cal., and Munson H. Lane, Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. S. William Cochran, Atty., U. S. Patent Office, with whom Mr. Clarence W. Moore, Sol., U. S. Patent Office, was on the brief, for appellee.
Before Prettyman, Senior Circuit Judge, and Wright and Tamm, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
This cause came on to be heard on the record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and was argued by counsel.
This court being in general agreement with the opinion filed herein by the District Court, Eckel v. Ladd, D.D.C., 233 F.Supp. 879 (1964); 1438(1).
It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be, and it is hereby, affirmed. See Zenith Radio Corporation v. Ladd, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 54, 57, 310 F.2d 859, 862 (1962).

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)". What is the gender of this litigant?Use names to classify the party's sex only if there is little ambiguity.

Choices:
not ascertained
male - indication in opinion (e.g., use of masculine pronoun)
male - assumed because of name
female - indication in opinion of gender
female - assumed because of name

Answer: 2