In the case of I.T.S. Rubber Company v. Essex Rubber Company in 1926, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a patent dispute between two rubber companies over tire technology. The plaintiff, I.T.S., claimed that Essex had infringed upon their patented design for an automobile tire and sought damages as well as an injunction to prevent further infringement. However, after examining the evidence presented by both parties, including expert testimonies and physical exhibits of the tires in question, the court found no substantial difference between I.T.S.'s patented design and prior existing designs already available to public use before its patent application date. Therefore, it ruled that there was no novelty or invention involved in I.T.S.'s product warranting protection under patent law; hence they could not claim exclusive rights over it nor accuse others of infringement based on this particular design.

The dissenting opinion in the case of I. T. S. Rubber Company v. Essex Rubber Company argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent for an automobile tire design was incorrect due to lack of novelty and non-obviousness, two key requirements for patentability under U.S law. The justice contended that the patented design - a tire with fabric layers extending from bead to bead - was not significantly different from existing designs and thus did not meet the requirement for novelty or inventiveness necessary for patent protection. Furthermore, he believed it would have been obvious to any person skilled in this field at that time period how to make such a tire without needing instruction from this particular patent, thereby failing another crucial test of patent eligibility: non-obviousness.