Interference No. 102,668
the witnesses except Cavanagh identified their residences at19
the time of their testimony (June 1991) as various cities in
Massachusetts (namely, Norwood, Rockland, Easton, Stoughton,
and Duxbury) and explained that they worked for Hazeltine,
Cavanagh's assignee, in August 1988 (the time of the alleged
actual reduction to practice). As requested by Cavanagh in
his opposition to McMahon's motion to strike, we are taking
"official notice" of the fact that these cities are all20
located in the eastern part of the state, as can be
ascertained from any detailed road atlas. While the witnesses
did not explain where they resided during August 1988, we
believe it is reasonable to conclude that they resided in the
same area then as they did at the time of their testimony, as
it is unlikely that they would have moved in the interim to
eastern Massachusetts from another area, let alone an area
near or in a foreign country. We are also granting Cavanagh's
request to take official notice of the fact that eastern
Cavanagh did not give his place of residence or19
employment.
Cavanagh's request used the term "judicial notice." 3720
CFR § 1.671(c)(3) explains that the term "judicial notice" in the
Federal Rules of Evidence means "official notice" in the context
of an interference proceeding before the Board.
- 18 -
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007