Appeal No. 1999-2627
Application 08/516,516
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Heathcoat 4,988,023 Jan.
29, 1991
McClary 5,199,287 Apr. 6,
1993
Claims 1 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over McClary in view of Heathcoat.
Attention is directed to the appellant’s brief (Paper No.
39) and to the examiner’s final rejection and answer (Paper
Nos. 36 and 41) for the respective positions of the appellant
and the examiner with regard to the merits of this rejection.
McClary, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a
security device 11 for preventing unauthorized removal of a
spare tire 13 from a hoist 15 mounted beneath the rear end of
a vehicle 23. The hoist (see Figure 1) includes a hoist shaft
21 having a flared end 25 for engagement with a ratchet crank
27 inserted through an opening 29 in the vehicle’s rear bumper
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007