In the 1912 case of Scott v. Lattig, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Idaho. The plaintiff, Scott, claimed that he had acquired rights to a parcel of land through homesteading laws and subsequent purchase from another party who also claimed rights under homesteading laws. However, the defendant, Lattig asserted that they owned this same piece of property by virtue of an older mining claim which was later patented by them. The court ruled in favor of Lattig stating that their patent gave them superior title to the disputed land as it was issued before any other claims were made on it under homestead laws or otherwise. This decision upheld previous rulings establishing precedence for patents providing stronger legal protection than unpatented claims.

In the dissenting opinion for Scott v. Lattig, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to deny a patent application on grounds of lack of novelty and non-obviousness. He argued that the invention in question was indeed novel and not obvious to those skilled in the art at that time. Furthermore, he contended that it was inappropriate for courts to make determinations about scientific or technical matters beyond their expertise, such as whether an invention is new or non-obvious enough to warrant patent protection. Instead, these decisions should be left up to experts in relevant fields who are better equipped than judges or juries to evaluate them accurately and fairly.