opinion: ALLISON COUPON CO. v. BANK OF COMMERCE & SAVINGS.
  No. 7510.
  United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
  Decided April 1, 1940.
  William S. Hodges and Dwight B. Galt, both of Washington, D. C, for appellant.
  Lee B. Kemon, of Washington, D. C., and Theodore S. Kenyon, of New York City, for appellee.
  Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and, EDGERTON and RUTLEDGE, Associáte Justices.
  EDGERTON, Associate Justice.
  This is a patent infringement suit. The District Court made full and specific findings of fact with respect to the prior art. .The correctness of those facts is not disputed. In our opinion they overcome the presumption in favor of the validity of an issued patent arid require the conclusion, -which the court reached, that the patent is invalid.
  The alleged invention, Kelly patent No. 2,010,724, is a coupon book for use in in-stalment collections. Each coupon bears the names of all the months of the year, and also all numbers from 1 to 31. Each number occupies the same relative position on each coupon. The names of the months, on the other hand, are offset, so that where one coupon has “May” the next has “June.” It results that by punching the book only twice, once for the months and once for the days, one may indicate any given day, e. g., the 15th, in each of a series of months. The coupons are numbered serially for convenience in keeping track of payments made and to be made.
  As the District Court found, the prior Davis patent, No. 1,114,342, discloses a multiple-payment coupon book containing a serially-numbered series of interest coupons. As in Kelly, months are offset while days are superimposed, in order to facilitate the punching of a series of dates. Differences such as Kelly’s use of a monthly succession of dates in place of Davis’s quarterly succession, and the absence in Kelly of Davis’s certificate of deposit, are not patentable. Davis and Kelly accomplished substantially the same thing in substantially the same way.
  Affirmed.
instruction: 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.
choices: auto chemical drug food processing oil refining textile electronic alcohol or tobacco other unclear