See, e.g.,AngioDynamics , 979 F.3d at 1381 (explaining that the Federal Circuit has "long recognized that certain ‘printed matter’ falls outside the scope of patentable subject matter under U.S. patent law"); AstraZeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc. , 633 F.3d 1042, 1064 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("This court has generally found printed matter to fall outside the scope of § 101").AngioDynamics , 979 F.3d at 1381 (citing Praxair Distribution, Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prod. IP Ltd. , 890 F.3d 1024, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (extending the printed matter doctrine to claim limitations reciting certain mental steps or processes physicians take when prescribing a drug and finding the limitations were not entitled to patentable weight); In re Distefano , 808 F.3d 845, 849–50 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing cases developing the printed matter doctrine and providing examples of what qualifies as printed matter)).

Claim limitations directed to printed matter are not entitled to patentable weight unless the printed matter is functionally related to the substrate on which the printed matter is applied. E.g. , In re DiStefano , 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ; In re Gulack , 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983). While early cases developing this doctrine applied it to claims literally encompassing "printed" materials, e.g. , In re Russell , 48 F.2d 668, 669 (CCPA 1931) (claim to phonetically-arranged directory was printed matter), our cases have not limited the doctrine to that particular factual context, e.g. , King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc. , 616 F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that a claimed step of informing someone about an inherent property of a method was printed matter).

See id. at *7-9; see also, e.g., In re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (noting that when determining a claim's patentability and performing a printed matter doctrine analysis, the court "[does] not strike out the printed matter and analyze a 'new' claim, but simply [does] not give the printed matter any patentable weight: it may not be a basis for distinguishing prior art"). The printed matter doctrine applies "if a [patent] limitation claims (a) printed matter that (b) is not functionally or structurally related to the physical substrate holding the printed matter."

First, we determine whether the limitation in question is directed toward printed matter. In re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

administering of the long-acting suspension is avoided when the patient is taking a CYP3A4 inducer. Praxair Dist., Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP Ltd., 890 F.3d 1024, 1031 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing In re DiStefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015) and In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Id. at 1032 (quoting DiStefano, 808 F.3d at 848)

Cases have established a necessary condition for falling into the category of printed matter: a limitation is printed matter if it claims the content of information, i.e., the printed matter must be matter claimed for what it communicates. See Praxair, 890 F.3d at 1032; see also In re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848-49 (Fed Cir. 2015) (holding that a limitation is printed matter only if it claims the content of information). The first step of the printed matter analysis is the determination that the limitation in question is in fact directed toward printed matter.

While historically "printed matter" referred to claim elements that literally encompassed "printed" material, the doctrine has evolved over time to guard against attempts to monopolize the conveyance of information using any medium. See Praxair Distrib., Inc. v. Mallinckrodt Hosp. Prods. IP Ltd. , 890 F.3d 1024, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ; In re Distefano , 808 F.3d 845, 849 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Today, printed matter encompasses any information claimed for its communicative content, and the doctrine prohibits patenting such printed matter unless it is "functionally related" to its "substrate," which encompasses the structural elements of the claimed invention.

This court reviews the Board's factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. See In re DiStefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is a "mixed question of fact and law."

Similarly, substantial evidence supports the determination that claim 3's inclusion of a barcode on an advertisement placed on the mat would have been obvious in view of Potok. Claim 3's inclusion of a barcode is nothing more than another type of printed matter within an advertisement that does not change the function of the claimed advertising mat. See In re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 851 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that, under the printed matter doctrine, printed matter may only have patentable weight if "it is functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate"). Therefore, claims 1, 3, and 5-9 would have been obvious over Potok.

As to the symbols in claims 20 and 24, "we have long held that if a limitation claims (a) printed matter that (b) is not functionally or structurally related to the physical substrate holding the printed matter, it does not lend any patentable weight to the patentability analysis." In re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 848 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Board concluded the printed symbols bear no functional or structural relationship to the labels on which they are printed and thus cannot form a patentable distinction with the prior art references asserted here.