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
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007