[2] The specific controversy in Aro concerned the replacement of a fabric top portion of an automobile convertible roof assembly.

The courts weighed against one another factors such as the following, although there was no common denominator for them: Thus the court of appeals had said in its opinion that the fabric "is not a minor or relatively inexpensive component" of the patented combination, or an element that would expectedly wear out after a very short period of use—although its "expectable life span" is shorter than that of the other components—and, for these reasons, it concluded that "an owner would [not] rationally believe that...he was making only a minor repair" in replacing the worn-out fabric, but that, instead, the replacement "would be counted a major reconstruction".

A comparable result to that of Aro has been reached under UK law, although the latter goes somewhat further by allowing automobile repair to extend to the replacement of worn out parts subject to intellectual property protection.

In his speech, Lord Bridge stated, “What the owner needs, if his right to repair is to be of value to him, is the freedom to acquire a previously manufactured replacement exhaust system in an unrestricted market.” In this regard, he observed that it was infeasible for the general public to make their own tailpipes or go to the village blacksmith to have them specially made.

[12] Some commentary approved the Aro decision as providing more certainty and better balance of the public's and original equipment manufacturers' interests.

Other commentators disapproved of the decision's "short shrift" for the contributory infringement claims of manufacturers to the exclusive right to sell repair parts for their products.

James C. Bageman explains the issue of repair vs. reconstruction as "another aspect of the problem of how far to extend the patent monopoly," because "to decide whether or not the repair doctrine is a defense to an allegation of contributory infringement is to decide whether the patentee should receive any additional compensation over and above what he received through the initial sale of his invention during the functional life of that device."

Bageman considers it "doubtful that by removing this source of compensation, prospective inventors will lose the economic incentive to create."

"[13] Thomas F. Caffrey sees Aro as setting a standard under which repair will be the usual result and reconstruction a rare case.

In his view, inexplicitness is a virtue: Any attempts to clarify the "making" test, be it by example or description or otherwise, would necessarily have the effect of dispelling any vestiges of simplicity that might surround it.

As a result, combination patent holders and small business entrepreneurs will better appreciate the limits of their respective offices, and the courts will less frequently find before them an issue of repair or reconstruction.

[14]Julius Schafran criticized the decision because "at present it appears that the rights afforded by a combination patent have been diminished, and it seems likely that findings of forbidden reconstruction will in the future become exceedingly scarce.