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 "miscellaneous". Your task is to determine which of the following categories best describes the litigant.

Opinion:
Gordon A. HAUGH et al., Appellants, v. Robert C. WATSON, Commissioner of Patents, Appellee.
No. 12459.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued April 5, 1955.
Decided May 5, 1955.
Mr. A. Yates Dowell, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. A. Yates Dowell, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellants.
Mr. S. William Cochran, Counsel, United States Patent Office, Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. E. L. Reynolds, Solicitor, United States Patent Office, Washington,. D. C., was on the brief, for appel-lee.
Before WILBUR K. MILLER, FAHY and DANAHER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia which dismissed appellants’ complaint filed under R.S. § 4915, 35 U.S.C. § 145, to authorize the Commissioner of Patents to grant certain claims, which he had denied, of a patent application. Certain other claims were granted by the Commissioner.
The appellants have made no showing which in our view would justify us in disturbing the findings and conclusions of the District Judge, which for the reasons given in his opinion seem to us to be correct.
Affirmed.
. Haugh v. Watson (1954), D.C., 130 F. Supp. 812.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "miscellaneous". Which of the following categories best describes the litigant?

Choices:
fiduciary, executor, or trustee
other
nature of the litigant not ascertained

Answer: 1