Alvin Anthony Schall

How Judge Schall rules, drawn from 53 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Position
circuit
Appointed by
George H. W. Bush (Republican)
Commissioned
1992-08-17
Education
Princeton University (B.A., 1966); Tulane University Law School (J.D., 1969)
Signed orders read
53

How Judge Schall decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

On obviousness he insists the prior art be analogous — reasonably pertinent to the problem the inventor faced — before it can be held against a claim; a non-analogous reference cannot support a rejection.

“A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention.”

In veterans-benefits cases he treats a board's failure to decide a claim clearly presented to it as a reviewable decision, preventing an adjudicative omission from defeating appellate jurisdiction.

“the Board’s failure to decide a claim clearly presented to it constitutes a ‘decision’ of the Board, which vests the Veterans Court with jurisdiction.”

The veterans benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not eliminate evidence weighing: the board must assign probative value to competing evidence before deciding whether the record is approximately balanced.

“when conducting a benefit-of-the-doubt-rule analysis, as in other settings, the Board is required to assign probative value to the evidence.”

Procedural preferences

When an adjudicator promises a hearing if material facts are disputed, he enforces that procedure once the record shows a genuine factual conflict.

“When the AJ dismissed Juanita’s appeal without a hearing, the AJ deviated from the requirements and procedure set out in her order. Accordingly, the AJ abused her discretion in failing to hold a hearing on the timeliness issue.”

He requires notice-and-comment procedures when an agency communication operates as a substantive rule rather than merely interpreting existing law.

“We therefore grant the Coalition’s petition for review, set aside the Dear Manufacturer letter, and remand the matter to the VA for compliance with the procedures required by the APA.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

Para-Ordnance Manufacturing, Inc. v. SGS Importers International, Inc.
73 F.3d 1085 · 1996-03-20
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“We affirm the court's determination of invalidity and do not address infringement.”

Collette v. Brown
82 F.3d 389 · 1996-04-23
Petition for review (claimant (petitioner)) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Court of Veterans Appeals affirming the BVA's denial of Collette's claim is vacated.”

Perez v. Merit Systems Protection Board
85 F.3d 591 · 1996-06-03
Petition for review (petitioner) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the Board dismissing Perez's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”

Hutchison v. Merit Systems Protection Board
91 F.3d 1458 · 1996-08-07
Petition for review (petitioner) Granted

“We vacate and remand.”

Arbor Foods Inc. v. United States
97 F.3d 534 · 1996-09-30
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Court of International Trade.”

Elliott v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
95 F.3d 1121 · 1996-11-21
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“The decision of the district court affirming the RO is therefore affirmed.”

Board of County Supervisors of Prince William County v. United States
116 F.3d 454 · 1997-06-18
Appeal (United States (appellant)) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims is vacated.”

Martinez v. Merit Systems Protection Board
126 F.3d 1480 · 1997-10-15
Petition for review (petitioner) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Board is affirmed.”

Vectra Fitness, Inc. v. TNWK Corp.
162 F.3d 1379 · 1999-01-22
Appeal (appellant) Denied

“For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.”

Tippett v. United States
185 F.3d 1250 · 1999-06-18
Appeal (appellant) Granted

“Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the Court of Federal Claims and remand the case to the court for further proceedings.”

Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
182 F.3d 1356 · 1999-07-16
Appeal (defendant (appellant)) Granted

“The court's ultimate determination under 35 U.S.C. Sec. 285 is vacated and the case as a whole is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

La Crosse Footwear, Inc. v. United States
191 F.3d 1372 · 1999-09-14
Appeal (United States (appellant)) Granted

“For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Federal Claims is reversed.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

Circuit judges do not carry a trial caseload; not enumerated.

Draft for Judge Schall with the record in hand

Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Schall, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Grounded in Judge Schall's own signed orders
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace