It also features one of the great stories of patent litigation lore, with Adams's attorney utilizing an innovative and unique method of non-oral advocacy at oral argument in front of the Supreme Court.

The United States sought review of a judgment of the Court of Claims, holding valid and infringed a patent on a wet battery issued to Adams.

2,322,210, relates to a nonrechargeable electrical battery composed of two electrodes - one of magnesium and the other of cuprous chloride, with a plain or salt water electrolyte.

The specifications of the patent states that the object of the invention is to provide constant voltage and current without the use of acids and without the generation of dangerous fumes.

Some accounts suggest that the attorney knew he had won the case when the Justices kept their eyes on the tiny burning light throughout the remainder of the argument.

[2] "Despite the fact that each of the elements of the Adams battery was well known in the prior art.... [K]nown disadvantages in old devices which would naturally discourage the search for new inventions may be taken into account in determining obviousness."

In a case that featured a great deal of prior art very close to the invention, these secondary considerations evidently played an important, perhaps even dispositive, role.