PTO’s conclusion that there was no re dation for the presumption of validity, in Dickinson v. Zurko, the Court held that the agency’s expert knowledge was the foundation for the substantial evidence standard of appellate review. 527 U.S. 150, 162, 119 S.Ct. 1816, 144 L.Ed.2d 143 (1999). That holding rested on the recognition that “the PTO is an expert body, or that the PTO can better deal with the technically complex subject matter, and that the PTO consequently deserves deference.” Id. at 160, 119 S.Ct. 1816. The Court explained that the PTO’s technical expertise was the type of “reason[ ] that courts and commentators have long invoked to justify deference to agency fact-finding.” Id. (citations omitted); see also Kappos v. Hyatt, — U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 1690, 1700, 182 L.Ed.2d 704 (2012) (<HOLDING>). Deference to the agency’s expert knowledge is
holding that maintenance and enforcement of a patent obtained by fraud on the pto can form the basis for antitrust liability recognizing the jurys role in evaluating credibility recognizing special circumstances exception holding patent policy incorporated by reference into patent agreement recognizing that the pto has special expertise in evaluating patent applications