Appeal No. 1999-2627
Application 08/516,516
McClary does not meet the limitations in independent
claim 1 requiring the recited security device to include a
locking shaft bar having a diameter throughout its length that
is uniformly smaller than the diameter of an opening in a
bumper so that the locking shaft can pass completely through
the opening, a locking shaft end which is insertable into
rotational interlocking engagement with the distal end of a
hoist shaft, and a lock which affords limited arcuate
displacement of the locking shaft via rotational interference
with an offset cross-section of the bumper. In contrast,
McClary’s locking shaft includes a portion (cup 33) having a
diameter larger than that of bumper opening 29 which prevents
the locking shaft from passing completely through the opening,
a locking shaft end (cup 33) which fits about the distal end
25 of hoist shaft 21 in non-interlocking engagement, and a
lock 45 which does not ostensibly afford the locking shaft any
limited arcuate displacement due to rotational interference
with an offset cross-section of bumper 21. Similarly, McClary
does not meet the limitations in independent claim 5 requiring
the recited securing device to include a locking shaft of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007