In the 1930 case of Lektophone Corporation v. The Rola Company, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a patent dispute between two companies involved in sound reproduction technology. Lektophone Corporation claimed that Rola Company had infringed on their patented design for a loudspeaker diaphragm. However, the court ruled in favor of Rola Company stating that there was no infringement as it did not use any new or novel elements which were already covered by existing patents held by others and thus could not be considered an invention under patent law. Furthermore, they stated that even if such an element existed within Lektophone's design, it would have been obvious to anyone skilled in this field at the time and therefore still wouldn't qualify for protection under patent law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Lektophone Corporation v. The Rola Company argued that the patent at issue was not novel or non-obvious, and therefore should not have been granted. They contended that the design for a loudspeaker diaphragm made from paper pulp was an obvious solution to known problems in the field, rather than a groundbreaking invention deserving of patent protection. Furthermore, they pointed out that similar designs had already existed prior to this one being patented, which further undermined its claim to novelty. Therefore, they believed it was incorrect for the majority to uphold this patent as valid and enforceable against alleged infringers like Rola Company.