In the 1908 U.S. Supreme Court case Frasch v. Moore, the court examined a patent dispute over mining technology for sulphur extraction. Herman Frasch had patented a method of extracting sulphur from underground deposits using superheated water to melt the mineral and bring it to the surface, which was being used by Oscar E. Moore without permission or license from Frasch. The lower courts ruled in favor of Frasch but on appeal, Moore argued that he did not infringe upon any new principle as his process differed significantly from what was described in Frasch's patents. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and upheld the previous rulings, stating that while there were differences between their methods, they both relied on essentially similar principles - heating subterranean sulfur into liquid form and then forcing it up through an outlet pipe - thus constituting infringement under patent law.

In the dissenting opinion for Frasch v. Moore, Justice Harlan argued that the patent in question should not have been invalidated. He contended that while it was true that some elements of the invention were already known, this did not necessarily mean that they were obvious or easy to combine in a way to achieve a new and useful result. The majority's decision focused on individual components of the invention rather than considering their combined effect as an integrated whole. In his view, this approach failed to appreciate how inventors often build upon existing knowledge and technology to create something novel and innovative. Therefore, he believed that even if all parts of an invention are separately known in prior art, it does not automatically render such combination unpatentable unless its benefits could be readily envisioned by someone skilled in relevant field before its actual creation.