In the case of New York Scaffolding Company v. Chain Belt Company et al., 1920, the Supreme Court dealt with a patent dispute between two companies over scaffolding equipment. The plaintiff, New York Scaffolding, claimed that Chain Belt had infringed on its patented design for an adjustable scaffold bracket. However, Chain Belt argued that this patent was invalid because it lacked novelty and inventiveness as required by law - essentially stating that similar designs already existed prior to New York Scaffolding's claim. After reviewing the evidence presented by both parties and considering previous court rulings related to patents and inventions, the Supreme Court sided with Chain Belt Company. The court ruled in favor of them holding that while there were minor differences between their product and those previously existing in public domain; these did not constitute a new or inventive step necessary for obtaining a valid patent under U.S law.

In the dissenting opinion for New York Scaffolding Company v. Chain Belt Company, it was argued that the patent in question should not have been invalidated. The dissenting justices believed that there had been a misinterpretation of precedent and an overemphasis on technical details rather than practical application. They contended that while the patented device may have included elements already known, its novel combination produced a new and useful result which deserved protection under patent law. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's view about "prior use", arguing instead that such prior use did not invalidate this particular patent because it was neither public nor widespread enough to constitute common knowledge or usage within industry standards at relevant times.