Appeal No. 1998-2032 Application No. 08/410,048 With regard to the remarks on page 5 of the supplemental answer, the examiner has misapplied the ruling in In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (discovery of an optimum range by routine experimentation is not patentable). In the case before us, we are not concerned with ranges of any kind. The claimed difference in structure, namely the triangular plate in appellant=s invention as compared with the bar like forming member in the primary references and the triangular frames in the secondary references, cannot be likened to a difference in numerical ranges. The examiner=s decision to reject claims 1-24 as unpatentable over the `999 Baldacci patent in view of each of the secondary references (namely the `776 Ottaviano patent, the `613 Ottaviano patent and the Komaransky patent) is reversed, the examiner=s decision to reject claims 1-24 as unpatentable over the `581 Baldacci patent in view of each of the foregoing secondary references is reversed and the examiner=s decision to reject claims 1-24 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007