In the case of Barber Asphalt Paving Company v. Standard Asphalt & Rubber Company in 1927, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a patent dispute between two asphalt companies. The plaintiff, Barber Asphalt Paving Co., alleged that Standard had infringed on its patented method for creating pavement by using a specific type of rubber compound as an ingredient in their asphalt mixture. However, the court ruled against Barber and found no infringement occurred because it was not proven that Standard's process used exactly the same ingredients or methods outlined in Barber’s patent claim. Furthermore, even if there were similarities between both processes, they did not constitute infringement since patents are granted for specific inventions rather than general ideas or principles underlying those inventions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Barber Asphalt Paving Company v. Standard Asphalt & Rubber Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent for an asphalt mixture was incorrect. The dissent contended that the patented product was not sufficiently novel or non-obvious to warrant protection, as it merely combined known elements without producing any unexpected or superior results. They believed this combination did not meet the standard required by law for inventiveness and novelty necessary for granting a patent right. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how similar cases had been handled previously, suggesting that there should be more consistency in determining what constitutes a valid invention deserving of patent protection.