Fire escape – ladder – or scaffold – Pole or strand grasping-type climber – Alternate grasping
Reexamination Certificate
2000-04-05
2002-02-12
Stodola, Daniel P. (Department: 3634)
Fire escape, ladder, or scaffold
Pole or strand grasping-type climber
Alternate grasping
C182S188000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06345690
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to a tree stand. More specifically, the invention provides a climbing tree stand that can be utilized for hunting.
2. Description of the Related Art
Generally, climbing tree stands that consist of a first upper support and a second lower support are known. The upper support generally includes a seating apparatus for accommodating a seated hunter and the lower support generally includes a foot support platform for supporting the legs of the hunter when seated in the climbing tree stand. As is generally known, the hunter is able to climb a tree with the tree stand by alternately raising the upper support and the lower support as the climber climbs the tree in order to position it on the trunk of the tree to obtain a favorable hunting position. U.S. Pat. No. 4,230,203 generally describes these types of tree stands. However, there are problems with known climbing tree stands.
One of the problems with known tree stands is the physical structural configurations of the support platforms. The physical structures of the platforms result in platforms which, when disassembled for carrying and transport by the hunter, are large and thus difficult to carry and transport. One particular problem with the structural configuration of known climbing tree stands can be seen in the '203 patent. As can be seen in the '203 patent, in order to secure the platforms around the tree, a blade
80
, for example, of the upper platform extends around an opposed side of the tree. The blade
80
is secured to arms
78
by utilizing connection hardware, such as threaded fasteners
50
. As can be seen, blade
80
is formed in a v-shaped configuration. An aperture is located at each end of blade
80
which aligns with an appropriate aperture included within arms
78
. Because the platforms may possibly be positioned around trees of varying sizes, arms
78
must be elongated such that they can include multiple apertures within them for joining with blade
80
. The apertures in blade
80
are aligned with appropriate apertures in arms
78
to accommodate a tree of a particular width. Whereas this may not present a particular problem when the support platforms are positioned on the trees, when the platforms are disassembled for carrying and transport by the hunter, these long arms
78
present drawbacks. The extended length of arms
78
results in a large structure which is difficult to carry and transport. Therefore, it would be desirable to provide a platform that has a more compact configuration when disassembled for carrying and storage purposes.
Another problem with known tree climbing stands is the difficulty that is associated with assembling the stands by the hunter. As described above, for example, in order to assemble both the upper and lower platforms of the tree stand, the hunter must connect blade
80
with arms
78
by utilizing connection hardware. The hunter must align the apertures in blade
80
with one of the apertures included in each of arms
78
and insert connection hardware within the aligned apertures to secure blade
80
to arms
78
. Whereas this may not appear to be a difficult procedure, assembly of the deer stand is usually accomplished in the early morning hours before sunrise. Thus, the hunter is required to assemble the platforms in darkness. In order to try to ease the task of assembling the platform, the hunter may utilize artificial lighting, such as a flashlight. However, it is difficult for the hunter to both hold and/or position the flashlight while still trying to maneuver, position, and assemble the platform together. Thus, there is a need for an improved method for assembling the deer stand in the environment in which the hunter is usually required to assemble the deer stand.
Another problem with known tree climbing stands is the requirement for the hunter to engage the lower platform with his/her feet in order to lift the lower platform with his/her legs as the hunter is climbing the tree with the upper and lower platforms. Known devices for allowing the hunter to engage the lower platform with his/her boots present drawbacks. U.S. Pat. No. 4,137,995 illustrates a known apparatus for allowing the hunter to engage the lower platform with his/her boots. As can be seen in the '995 patent, feet engaging elements
66
are provided on the lower climbing platform
12
. Each foot engaging element
66
includes a foot hold
68
which is fixedly attached to the upper surface of foot support member
64
. Feet engaging element
66
also includes adjustable straps
70
to secure the hunter's feet to the lower climbing platform
12
. However, drawbacks exist with this particular device and with other known devices. Because these known devices are comprised of flexible elements, e.g., leather straps, the component parts of the foot holding devices may not adequately maintain their form when the hunter does not have his/her boots within the devices. Thus, when the hunter is trying to position his/her feet within the device when beginning to climb the tree, the device's form may have collapsed and it could be difficult for the hunter to position his/her feet within the device. Additionally, the securing straps which extend around the back of the hunter's boots to retain the hunter's boots within the device are also flexible. These straps may be difficult for the hunter to appropriately position for entry into and be difficult for securing around his/her boots since they require the hunter to buckle the straps around the boots. Thus, for these and other reasons, there are problems with known foot holding devices.
Still another problem with known tree climbing stands is that it is difficult to package the two disassembled platforms together in order to provide for ease of carrying and transporting the platforms for the hunter. Generally, it is known to merely attempt to stack the two platforms on top of each other and just secure the platforms together by wrapping the stacked platforms with a rope-type of securing mechanism. Whereas this may provide for securing the two platforms together, the platforms are not directly inter-engaged and may easily become separated due to these inefficient securing mechanisms. Whereas it is also known to join an upper platform to a lower platform by utilizing pin structures on one of the platforms which are inserted into corresponding pin openings on the other of the platforms, this type of device has drawbacks due to the difficulties that can be encountered when trying to align the pins with the openings, particularly in the hunter's environment.
Still yet another disadvantage of known tree climbing stands is that a blade that is included on the platforms which engage the tree on the platform side of the tree, i.e., on the side of the tree that is opposed from the side of the tree that is engaged by blade
80
in the '203 patent, is generally formed in multiple pieces. That is, the blade is generally formed in at least two pieces that are disposed apart from each other on the platform with a gap included between the two pieces. Whereas this configuration may be adequate for engaging trees of a larger width, i.e., both pieces of the blade are able to engage with the large width tree, this configuration is not adequate for engaging trees with smaller widths. If this two-piece configuration is attempted to be utilized with smaller diameter trees, the tree trunk would be positioned in the slot or opening between the two blade pieces and thus the blades would not be able to engage with the tree. Thus, the known designs for these blade pieces are not adequate for use with all sizes of trees. Additionally, because the blade is formed in two or more pieces, the blade may not be as rigid a structure as is desired and does not provide for as much stability of the platform against the tree as may be desired.
Therefore, because of the above-described drawbacks of known tree stands and for other drawbacks that are associated with c
Kenyon & Kenyon
Stodola Daniel P.
Thompson Hugh B.
LandOfFree
Tree stand does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Tree stand, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Tree stand will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2985438