Although, the Graham's factors have been cited numerous times by patent examiners and courts, the inducement standard has been largely ignored.

Thus, Jefferson intended that the limited monopoly granted by a patent was only to be permitted in order to "promote the progress of science", rather than for small details and obvious improvements.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Hotchkiss v. Greenwood,[7] invalidated a patent on the grounds that it involved only a substitution of materials rather than any real innovation.

The Hotchkiss court effectively added the requirement of nonobviousness, and it had been left to the judiciary to determine whether the patent involved non-obvious invention.

Following that case, the Supreme Court issued myriad decisions with an evolving and unpredictable standard for obviousness.

Clark then examined the prosecution history and prior art of both sets of patents involved in the case.

One argument which Graham raised before the court, but had not raised before the USPTO, was that in the new '798 design, the flexing of the plow shank was limited to the points between the spring clamp and the tip of the plow shank, absorbing the shock of hard objects on the ground more efficiently.

[8] In the matters concerning Cook Chemical, Scoggin, a corporate officer at Cook, had originally based his design on Calmar's previous unpatented design, but later claimed that the integration of the sprayer and container solved the problem of external leakage during assembly and shipping of insecticide products.

Clark further held that the differences between Scoggin's design and the prior art were simply too minor and non-technical to maintain the validity of Cook's patent.

A companion case, United States v. Adams, was argued the same day and—in contrast to the holding in Graham v. Deere—held that non-obviousness was satisfied.