Cite as: 527 U. S. 150 (1999)
Appendix to opinion of the Court
Finally, the Circuit reasons that its stricter court/court review will produce better agency factfinding. It says that the standard encourages the creation of "administrative records that more fully describe the metes and bounds of the patent grant" and "help avoid situations where board fact finding on matters such as anticipation or the factual inquiries underlying obviousness become virtually unreviewable." 142 F. 3d, at 1458. Neither the Circuit nor its supporting amici, however, have explained convincingly why direct review of the PTO's patent denials demands a stricter fact-related review standard than is applicable to other agencies. Congress has set forth the appropriate standard in the APA. For the reasons stated, we have not found circumstances that justify an exception.
For these reasons, the judgment of the Federal Circuit is reversed. We remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT
Review of 89 Pre-APA CCPA Patent Cases Reciting "Clear" or "Manifest" Error Standard
Cases Referring to both Technical Complexity/Agency Expertise and the Agreement (Disagreement) Within the Agency
Stern v. Schroeder, 17 C. C. P. A. 670, 674, 36 F. 2d 515,
517 (1929)
In re Ford, 17 C. C. P. A. 893, 894, 38 F. 2d 525, 526 (1930) In re Demarest, 17 C. C. P. A. 904, 906, 38 F. 2d 895, 896
(1930)
In re Wietzel, 17 C. C. P. A. 1079, 1082, 39 F. 2d 669, 671
(1930)
In re Anhaltzer, 18 C. C. P. A. 1181, 1184, 48 F. 2d 657,
658 (1931)
165
Page: Index Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007