CAVANAGH V. MCMAHON et al. - Page 20




          Interference No. 102,668                                                    


          McMahon contends Cavanagh failed to comply with paragraph (b)               
          of Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence ("Judicial Notice              
          of Adjudicative Facts"), which as applied to interferences by               
          37 CFR § 1.671(c) requires that the asserted fact                           
                    be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it               
                    is  either (1) generally known within the                         
                    territorial jurisdiction of the [Board] or                        
                    (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by                
                    resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably                
                    be questioned.                                                    
          In arguing that the geographical facts in question are not                  
          "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to any               
          specified sources" (our emphasis),  McMahon is apparently22                                        
          relying on paragraph (d) of the rule, which reads: "When                    
          mandatory.  A court shall take judicial notice if requested by              
          a party and supplied with the necessary information."                       
          Assuming for the sake of argument that Cavanagh's failure to                
          submit proof of the geographical facts in question violates                 
          this provision,  we are taking notice of these sua sponte                   
          pursuant to paragraph (c) of the rule, which reads: "(c) When               
          discretionary.  A court may take judicial notice, whether                   
          requested or not."                                                          


            Reply for Motion to Strike at 3.22                                                                     
                                          - 20 -                                      





Page:  Previous  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007