In the case of International Tooth Crown Company v. Gaylord, 1890, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gaylord. The dispute arose when International Tooth Crown Company claimed that Gaylord had infringed upon their patent for a method of making artificial teeth crowns by using gold or other metals and porcelain. However, it was found that the company's patent did not cover any new discovery or invention but merely described an old process with slight modifications which were deemed insignificant by the court. Therefore, it was concluded that there was no infringement on part of Gaylord as he used a similar but different technique to make dental crowns which involved processes known prior to plaintiff’s alleged invention.

In the dissenting opinion for International Tooth Crown Company v. Gaylord, the justice disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a patent infringement claim against Dr. Gaylord by International Tooth Crown Company (ITCC). The justice argued that ITCC's patent was invalid because it did not meet novelty and non-obviousness requirements of patent law. He pointed out that similar dental procedures had been in use before ITCC obtained its patent, thus making their invention unpatentable due to lack of originality or novelty. Furthermore, he contended that even if there were minor differences between previous methods and ITCC’s patented method, these changes would have been obvious to any skilled dentist at the time and therefore should not be considered as an innovative step worthy of a new patent protection under non-obviousness requirement.