TataBox: Yes I have. I assume that ranges do not tough or overlap, otherwise the Examiner would have jumped on that. Unfortunately, I've come across case law standing for the proposition that the prior art need only point out that a particular variable is "important" and would be optimized as a matter or routine. Having said that, does the reference in any way suggest that the pressures therein disclosed were not just picked out of the sky? Also, if a chem reaction is involved, you might be able to argue that lower / higher pressures are in someway counterinuitive. This need not rise to the level of a full-blown "teaching away". You only need a plausible argument that the Examiner's assertion doesn't have a basis in the art.