Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf
Page Number: 22.0

18 

UNITED STATES v. ARTHREX, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

ecutive Branch until 1958.  45 Stat. 1476; see Ex parte Ba-
kelite Corp., 279 U. S. 438, 460 (1929); see also 72 Stat. 848. 
The President appointed CCPA judges with the advice and
consent of the Senate.  36 Stat. 105.  Even after 1958, the 
Commissioner appears to have retained “the ultimate au-
thority regarding the granting of patents” through the ex-
amination and interference processes, notwithstanding the 
lack  of  a  formal  appeal  from  the  Board’s  decision.  In re 
Alappat, 33 F. 3d 1526, 1535 (CA Fed. 1994) (en banc) (plu-
rality opinion).  The history of the Board of Appeals, though 
more winding and varied than recounted here, has little to
say about the present provision expressly ordering the Di-
rector to undo his prior patentability determination when a 
PTAB panel of unaccountable APJs later disagrees with it.
See 35 U. S. C. §318(b).

The  Government  and  Smith  &  Nephew  also  note  that
early Patent Acts authorized the Secretary of State to ap-
point  two  types  of  officials  who  made  final  decisions  on 
questions of patent law.  See 1 Stat. 322–323 (panel of arbi-
trators in interference proceedings); 5 Stat. 120–121 (board 
of examiners to hear appeal from patentability or priority 
decision  of  Commissioner).    Neither  example,  however,
serves as historical precedent for modern APJs.  Both the 
arbitrators and the examiners assembled to resolve a single
issue—indeed,  these  ad hoc  positions  may  not  have  even 
constituted offices.  See Auffmordt v. Hedden, 137 U. S. 310, 
327 (1890).  If they were officers, they exercised their lim-
ited  power  under  “special  and  temporary  conditions.” 
United States v. Eaton, 169 U. S. 331, 343 (1898) (holding
that  an  inferior  officer  can  perform  functions  of  principal 
office on acting basis).  APJs, by contrast, occupy a perma-
nent office unless removed by the Secretary for cause. 

* 
We hold that the unreviewable authority wielded by APJs 

* 

*