In the case of William H. Seymour and Layton S. Morgan v. Cyrus H. McCormick, the plaintiffs argued that a patent held by McCormick for an improved reaping machine was invalid because it infringed on earlier patents held by other inventors, including one issued to Obed Hussey in 1833 and another issued to John Lane in 1845. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument, finding that while there were similarities between the inventions covered by these prior patents and McCormick's invention, they did not constitute infringement as defined under U.S law at the time due to differences in design or operation which made them distinct from each other; thus upholding McCormick's patent rights over his invention of an improved reaping machine as validly obtained through legal means without infringing upon any existing patents already granted for similar devices or processes at that time period .

In William H. Seymour and Layton S. Morgan v Cyrus H. McCormick, the dissenting opinion argued that the patent in question was invalid because it did not meet the requirements of novelty as outlined by Congress in 1836 when they passed a law requiring all patents to be novel inventions or improvements on existing ones. The dissent further argued that even if this requirement had been met, there were prior art references which showed similar machines existed before McCormick's invention and thus his patent should have been denied for lack of novelty. Furthermore, the dissent noted that since no evidence was presented to show how much labor or skill went into creating McCormick's machine, it could not be considered an invention under US Patent Law at all and therefore should never have been granted in the first place.