In the case of Smith v. Whitman Saddle Company in 1892, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute over patent rights. The plaintiff, Smith, alleged that Whitman Saddle Company had infringed upon his patented design for an improvement to saddles. However, the defendant argued that Smith's patent was invalid as it lacked novelty and inventiveness - two key requirements for obtaining a patent under U.S law at that time. The court ruled in favor of Whitman Saddle Company after examining evidence which showed prior existence and use of similar saddle designs before Smith obtained his patent. This led them to conclude that there was no new invention or discovery by Mr. Smith warranting a valid patent claim. This decision reinforced the importance of novelty and non-obviousness as prerequisites for granting patents while also highlighting how courts can invalidate patents if they find substantial proof showing lack of these elements.

In the dissenting opinion for Smith v. Whitman Saddle Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent on a saddle design was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the patented design did not meet the requirement of novelty and non-obviousness necessary for patent protection. They pointed out that saddles with similar designs had been in use long before Whitman applied for his patent, making his invention neither new nor non-obvious to those skilled in saddle-making arts. Furthermore, they contended that granting such broad patents could stifle competition and innovation by allowing companies like Whitman to monopolize basic and well-known designs. Therefore, they disagreed with the court's ruling upholding Whitman’s patent rights over this particular saddle design.