In the case of Wollensak v. Sargent in 1893, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a patent dispute over improvements to typewriters. The plaintiff, Wollensak, claimed that Sargent had infringed upon his patent for an improvement on typewriters which allowed them to automatically space between words and lines when typing. However, the defendant argued that this feature was already known and used in other machines prior to Wollensak's patent application; thus it lacked novelty - a requirement for obtaining a valid patent. The court agreed with the defendant’s argument stating that there were indeed previous examples of similar mechanisms being used before Wollensak filed his claim. Therefore, they ruled against him stating he could not claim exclusive rights over such an invention as it did not meet one of the key requirements for patents: originality or novelty. This decision reinforced how crucial it is for inventions seeking protection under patents laws must be novel or new compared to what exists at their time of creation.

In the dissenting opinion for Wollensak v. Sargent, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a patent on an improved device for cutting and shaping pencil leads was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the patentee had not invented anything new or non-obvious, but merely applied old methods in a slightly different way. They contended that such minor modifications should not be eligible for patent protection as they do not contribute significantly to technological progress or public benefit. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts of granting patents too easily, including stifling competition and innovation by allowing monopolies over trivial improvements.