PTAB Holds that “Providing . . . Information” Claim Limitation Is Not Entitled to Patentable Weight under the Printed Matter Doctrine

Jul 15, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

The PTAB’s ruling was predicated, in part, on its determination that certain elements of the challenged claims constituted “printed matter” that was not entitled to patentable weight. The printed matter doctrine provides that information claimed for its communicated content, e.g., dosing instructions, should not be accorded any weight in the patentability determination.  The challenged claims recited a step of providing to a medical provider information concerning recommended doses and potential consequences of dose administration. Citing Federal Circuit precedent applying the printed matter doctrine, the PTAB 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 . . . [and] may not be a basis for distinguishing prior art.” “[A]n otherwise anticipated method claim [does] not become patentable because it include[s] ‘a step of ‘informing’ someone about the existence of an inherent property of that method.’”

After determining that the challenged claims recite printed matter, the Board proceeded to the second step of the inquiry and determined that the printed matter was not structurally or functionally related to the physical substrate holding the matter, e.g., measurement gradations on the side of a measuring cup are functionally related to the substrate on which they are printed. In this case, “a cylinder containing compressed nitric oxide gas can be obtained and supplied to a medical provider with, or without, the information recited in [the challenged claims]. Because the ‘method of providing pharmaceutically acceptable nitric oxide gas’ can be performed irrespective of whether that knowledge is conveyed, [PTAB] conclude[d] that the step of ‘providing . . . information’ lacks a functional relationship to the remaining claim elements, and, therefore, accord[ed] it no patentable weight.” The “providing … information” limitation therefore could not serve to differentiate the claims from the prior art, and 18 of the 19 challenged claims were found unpatentable.

Petition for Inter Partes Review by Praxair Distribution, Inc., IPR2015-00529 (PTAB July 7, 2016, Order) (Pollock, APJ).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.