Appeal No. 1998-1781 Application No. 08/549,828 Appellant’s request submits that this panel has misapprehended the structure of Wright and misconstrued the meaning of the language of claim 25. In particular, the request urges that, contrary to our decision, the fitting (frame member 17) of Wright does not pivot relative to the panel (including the lower housing 13), that the mounting of the fitting to the lower housing is not a pivotal mounting, and that we have misconstrued the claim terminology “mounted” and “rotate in a plane.” Turning first to appellant’s argument that the frame member 17 of Wright does not pivot relative to the lower housing 13, we note that the frame member 17 pivots about a point of contact (at 27) on the track 20. In that the pivotal movement of the frame member is relative to the lower housing 13, we maintain our view that the frame member pivots relative to the lower housing. As for appellant’s argument that the mounting of the fitting on the panel is required by claim 25 to be a pivotal connection, in that the mounting via the shafts 24 and openings 23 permits pivotal movement of the frame member 17 relative to the lower housing 13, we consider the frame member to be 2Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007