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)". Your task is to classify the scope of this business into one of the following categories: "local" (individual or family owned business, scope limited to single community; generally proprietors, who are not incorporated); "neither local nor national" (e.g., an electrical power company whose operations cover one-third of the state); "national or multi-national" (assume that insurance companies and railroads are national in scope); and "not ascertained".

Opinion:
POLYMER PROCESSES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CADILLAC PLASTIC & CHEMICAL CO., Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15645.
United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
Nov. 2, 1964.
John T. Synnestvedt, Philadelphia, Pa., William P. Cole, Philadelphia, Pa., on brief; Whittemore, Hulbert & Belknap, Detroit, Mich., Synnestvedt & Lechner, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel, for appellant.
Charles J. Merriam, Chicago, 111., Basil P. Mann, Chicago, 111., on brief; Merriam, Smith & Marshall, Chicago, 111., Cullen, Sloman & Cantor, Detroit, Mich., of counsel, for appellee.
Before PHILLIPS and EDWARDS, Circuit Judges, and PRETTYMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
. Senior Circuit Judge E. BARRETT PRETTYMAN, of the District of Columbia Circuit, sitting by designation.
ORDER AFFIRMING JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT.
This is an action for patent infringement, involving the continuous production of large diameter rod stock from nylon, on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division. The District Judge, the Honorable Talbot Smith, rendered a comprehensive opinion holding that the claims of patent asserted by plaintiff are invalid for lack of patentable invention and have not been infringed by defendant. The case has been presented to this court upon briefs and oral argument.
Upon consideration, we find no error in the judgment of the District Court. It is ordered that the judgment of the District Court be and hereby is affirmed upon, the basis of the opinion of the District. Judge reported in 220 F.Supp. 563.

Question: This question concerns the first listed appellant. The nature of this litigant falls into the category "private business (including criminal enterprises)". What is the scope of this business?

Choices:
local
neither local nor national
national or multi-national
not ascertained

Answer: 3