498 (1874), is an 1874 decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the patent eligibility of abstract ideas.

[7] The Rubber-Tip Pencil case has frequently been cited in the subsequent Supreme Court decisions concerning the patent eligibility of computer-related claimed inventions, such as Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank,[8] Diamond v. Diehr,[9] Parker v. Flook,[10] and Gottschalk v. Benson,[11] Lead pencils and rubber erasers were known for a long time.

The defendant Howard made rubber-tipped pencils like those covered by the patent, so the company filed a bill in equity in the circuit court in New York, to enjoin him.

"[17] The court stated: Such an article cannot be the subject of a patent The elastic and erasive properties of India-rubber were known to all .

No person knowing of the elastic quality of rubber, could be wanting in the knowledge that a piece of rubber could be made to encompass and adhere to a pencil, ink eraser, or other article of similar character, by making a hole in it, nor could anyone be deficient in the skill requisite to make such a hole.

[18]The court, therefore, concluded that "the patent in question cannot be upheld, for want of invention," and dismissed the bill.

Counsel for the Rubber-Tip company made this argument" Lead-pencils have very long — longer than any living man remembers — been used to make marks.

In such a case it is vain to talk about the small amount of ingenuity shown or to say that the arrangement and application are so simple and obvious that anybody could see them.

[20]Writing for a unanimous Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite began by ascertaining what the claimed invention was.

Rather: [I]t is very evident that the essential element of the invention as understood by the patentee was the facility provided for attaching the [rubber] head to the pencil.

The Court did not provide any explanation of what was requisite for a patent on a good and useful idea, other than that novelty was required.

In Funk (1948), the Court said ideas (natural principles) could not be patented and that the device utilized in that case "may have been the product of skill, [but] it certainly was not the product of invention"; yet, the Court did not yet state in terms that the key to patenting the implementation of an idea is inventive implementation.