In the case of In re Fischer (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a patent application for an invention could be rejected on grounds that it lacked utility, even if it met all other statutory requirements. The petitioner, Julian M. Fischer, had developed a new chemical compound and sought to patent his creation but was denied by the Patent Office on grounds that he failed to establish any practical use for his invention. The court ruled in favor of the Patent Office stating that under federal law, an invention must not only be novel and non-obvious but also useful in order to qualify for patent protection. Therefore, despite meeting other criteria such as novelty and non-obviousness, Fischer's failure to demonstrate any specific or substantial utility rendered his application ineligible for a patent.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Fischer, 1967 argued that the majority's decision to deny a patent for an invention involving living organisms was incorrect. The dissenters believed that there should be no distinction between animate and inanimate natural phenomena when it comes to patent eligibility. They contended that if an inventor has found a way to harness or utilize a naturally occurring process or organism in a new and useful manner, they should be entitled to obtain a patent for their discovery. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that granting such patents would harm public interest by potentially monopolizing aspects of nature; instead, they argued this could stimulate innovation and progress within scientific fields.