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 is to determine the nature of the second listed appellant. If there are more than two appellants and at least one of the additional appellants has a different general category from the first appellant, then consider the first appellant with a different general category to be the second appellant.

Opinion:
FINLEY et al. v. COE, Com’r of Patents.
No. 6292.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Argued March 4, 1935.
Decided April 8, 1935.
Joseph W. Milburn, of Washington, D. C., for appellants.
T. A. Hostetler, Solicitor of Patent Office, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.
ROBB, Associate Justice.
Appeal from a decree in the Supreme Court of the District dismissing appellants’ bill, filed under the provisions of section 4915, R. S., as amended (35 USCA § 63), seeking to authorize the Commissioner of Patents to issue a shingle design patent to appellant Paraffine Companies, the assignee of the alleged inventor, appellant Finley.
The shingle is rectangular in shape, the lower edge forming a reverse curve, with the concave portion of the curve in the center and the convex portions at the ends. The side ends of the shingle are formed by straight parallel lines. A tab is formed at one lower corner of the shingle, and a notch is formed at the opposite lower corner. When these shingles are laid, with the tab of one shingle interlocking with the notch of an adjacent shingle, the adjacent convex curve portions will meet and produce a continuous convex curve.
We here reproduce appellants’ drawing of the shingle:
The examiner rejected the claim as substantially met by appellant Finley’s mechanical patent No. 1,604,745. We here reproduce fig. 4 of that patent:
The Board of Appeals sustained the primary examiner; thereupon this suit was instituted.
The functional parts of the reference shingle contribute nothing to the design. Martin Copeland Co. v. Pilot Electric Co. (C. C. A.) 32 F.(2d) 235; Ashley v. Weeks-Numan Co., 220 F. 899, 136 C. C. A. 465; In re Mygatt, 39 App. D. C. 432.
We here reproduce from appellants’ brief in the Patent Office a drawing showing the appearance of the shingles of the reference when laid:
Also a drawing illustrating the shingle of the issue when laid:
The authority for the issuance of a design patent is found in section 4929, R. S., as amended (35 USCA § 73), which provides that “any person who has invented any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture,” not known or used by others in this country before his invention thereof, etc., may obtain a patent therefor. (Italics ours.) Design patents, therefore, require as high a degree of the inventive or original faculty as mechanical patents. Knapp v. Will & Baumer Co. (C. C. A.) 273 F. 380; Smith v. Whitman Saddle Company, 148 U. S. 674, 679, 13 S. Ct. 768, 37 L. Ed. 606.
Appellants contend that to modify the lower edge of the shingle shown in the Finley mechanical patent by using a reverse curve instead of a simple curve involves invention. To meet this contention the Patent Office tribunals cited the patent to Shernrf, No. 1,701,640, which discloses a reverse curve on the lower edge of the same type of shingle. We agree with the Patent Office and the court below that the use in the shingle of the application of the reverse curve disclosed in the Sherriff patent instead of the single curve disclosed in the Finley mechanical patent was not the exercise of originality and, therefore, did not involve invention. In Re Sherman, 35 App. D. C. 100, involving an application for a design patent, we said: “While in a close case utility may be given some consideration, the real question is whether there is such originality shown as to call for the exercise of the inventive faculty.”
The decree is affirmed.
Affirmed.

Question: What is the nature of the second listed appellant whose detailed code is not identical to the code for the first listed appellant?

Choices:
private business (including criminal enterprises)
private organization or association
federal government (including DC)
sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
government - level not ascertained
natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
miscellaneous
not ascertained

Answer: 0