JUDD V. BABOOCK. 607 among other old elements used the cylindrical caBe. The defendants liave been manufacturing this article since that date. The plaintiff, a manufacturer in New Britain, bought the Sehaefer patent, and had it re-issued in 1879. The spring-roller has become a sash supporter, the "shank of a pully-fork" has become "a longitndinally-moving and flat-sided plunger fitted into a flat-sided bearing," and the screw-cylin- der has become a separate claim. In considering the question whether the cylinder of the springi catch is an infringement of the first claim of the re-issue, it must be remembered that Schaefer's "sash supporter" is simply a device to prevent lateral motion of loose window sash, and is not to be confounded with the ordinary window catch or sash fastener by reasori of the general name which is given in the patent. Both articles are used upon a window, and both are screwed or fastened into a jamb- casing, but there is no analogy in the uses, to which theyare applied. The roller presses the sash against the catch ; the catch holds up the ■window when it has been raised. Because Sehaefer first applied his Bcrew cylinder to a window friction-roller, he is not therefore entitled to the exclusive use of the cylinder when it is applied in other and not analogous mechanisms to produce a new effect. It cannot prop- erly be said that the effect which was to be produced by each cylinder was simply to hold a plunger. Screw cylinders had been often used to ho d plungers before either Sehaefer or Babcock made their inven- tion, as the bell-pulls and hooks for blinds, which were used on the trial, show; but each screw cylinder was to hold a very different kind of plunger, used for a different purpose from that of its fellows. The effect which was to be produced by the socket of Babcock was to hold a boit which should support and securely fasten a window, an effect very different from that produced by the Sehaefer roller. Had the original "friction-roller" patent contained the first claim of the re-issue, I think it would hardly have been contended that the claim covered all "fasteners" or "catehes" in which such a socket Bhould be used. The two articles, as a whole, are unlike, and the objects for which the cylinders are used are unlike. There is no infringement, and the bill is dismissed.
