REEDEREI BLUMENFELD, G. M. B. H.,

v.

HOLLEY, ADMINISTRATRIX

Citator

Cited By

• McCULLOUGH Tool Co. v. Well Surveys, Inc., 343 F.2d 381 (10th Cir. 1965)
  …bvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Admiral Corporation v. Zenith Radio Corp., supra; Philip Sitton Septic Tank Company v. Honer, 10 Cir., 274 F. 2d 811; E. J. Brooks Company v. Stoffel Seals Corporation, 2 Cir., 266 F. 2d 841, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 883, 80 S.Ct. 154, 4 L.Ed.2d 119. If those skilled in the art are working in a given field and have failed after repeated efforts to discover a particular new and useful improvement, the person who first makes the discovery does more than make the obvio…
• Emerson v. Holloway Concrete Prods. Co., Inc., 282 F.2d 271 (5th Cir. 1960)
  …ugh to include a cause of action for death resulting from unseaworthiness.” To this is appended footnote 56. “See, e. g., Holley v. The Manfred Stansfield, 269 F. 2d 317, 1959 AMC 2189 (4th Cir.), certiorari denied [Reederei Blumenfeld, G. M. B. H.] 361 U.S. 883 [80 S.Ct. 154, 4 L.Ed.2d 119] (1959), interpreting Va. Code Ann. § 8-633 (1957); [State of] Maryland ex rel. Gladden v. Weyerhaeuser S.S. Co., 176 F.Supp. 664, 1959 AMC 1380 (D.Md.1959), interpreting Md.Ann. Code art. 67, § 1 (1957).” To these may…
• Anton Lorenz v. F. W. Woolworth Co., 305 F.2d 102 (2d Cir. 1962)
  …llant cannot point to a specific problem to which workers in the field were directing their attention and which was solved by the Sehliephacke device. As we said in E. J. Brooks Co. v. Stoffel Seals Corp., 266 F. 2d 841, 842 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 883, 80 S.Ct. 154, 4 L.Ed.2d 119 (1959): “But apart from the usual and common desire of manufacturers constantly to improve their product —the stimulus of nearly all routine engineering improvements — there is no evidence of any specific and recognized…