As to the printed matter doctrine:When determining a claim’s patentability, the Boardmust read the claim as a whole, considering each andevery claim limitation. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385(Fed. Cir. 1983). However, we have long held that if alimitation claims (a) printed matter that (b) is not functionallyor structurally related to the physical substrateholding the printed matter, it does not lend any patentableweight to the patentability analysis. Id. at 1384–85.In performing this analysis we do not strike out theprinted matter and analyze a “new” claim, but simply donot give the printed matter any patentable weight: it maynot be a basis for distinguishing prior art. As we opinedin In re Gulack:Where the printed matter is not functionally relatedto the substrate, the printed matter will notdistinguish the invention from the prior art interms of patentability. Although the printed mattermust be considered, in that situation it maynot be entitled to…
↧