In the case of Corona Cord Tire Company v. Dovan Chemical Corporation, 1927, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a patent held by Dovan for a process of treating rubber so as to increase its resistance to wear and heat was valid or not. The lower courts had ruled in favor of Dovan, finding that their patent was indeed valid and had been infringed upon by Corona. However, on appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this decision. The court found that while Dovan's process did result in an improved product (i.e., more durable rubber), it did not involve any new or novel steps - rather it simply involved carrying out known processes under specified conditions which were also well-known in the industry at that time. Therefore, according to established principles of patent law which require an invention be both new and non-obvious in order for a patent to be granted on it; they concluded that no valid patent could have been issued on such a process. This ruling is significant because it clarified what constitutes novelty within inventions related specifically towards manufacturing processes.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Corona Cord Tire Company v. Dovan Chemical Corporation argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent infringement claim was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of the scope and validity of patents. The dissent emphasized that patents should only be granted for novel inventions, not minor alterations or improvements on existing technologies. They contended that Dovan’s patent did not meet this standard as it merely presented a slight variation on pre-existing methods for treating rubber, which were already widely known and used within the industry at large. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that Corona had infringed upon this patent by using similar processes in their own manufacturing operations, arguing instead that such practices constituted fair use under established principles of competition law rather than unlawful appropriation.