the intended purpose is not concerned with, or directly related to, the public health or welfare.

SECTION 1245,106(b)(4). The present invention is in the field of science or technology of optical viewing instruments. Since the Petitioner is known to have many patents in this field, is indicated as having had many years in the design and development of a wide range of optical instruments for the commercial airlines, among others, and has further noted an expenditure of its own funds of over $5 million in developing optical devices, it is considered that significant experience in the invention field outside of work funded by the Government has been shown. As further support for the latter finding, the Petitioner has submitted exhibits of periscopic sextants and numerous other optical products that it offers for sale, or has sold commercially.

To provide still further support for a favorable finding under this subsection, the NASA technical evaluator notes both that the Government has not been the principal developer of the field and that numerous nongovernment patents, presumably in addition to those owned by the Petitioner, have been issued in the field of optical viewing instruments. These patents are considered to be some evidence of the existence of competition in the field, although the indication of patents alone is not necessarily conclusive thereof. In any event, it is apparent that the present invention is only a small fraction of the total field involved, and that acquisition of the exclusive patent rights requested by the Petitioner would therefore not appear to confer on it a preferred or dominant position.

However, the Board further expressly finds that although waiver of title is not proscribed by Section 1245.106(b), it is precluded by the Petitioner's failure to meet the requirements of Section 1245.106(c). In view of lack of information in the present record of its plans and intentions regarding the inventive optical instrument eyepiece, the Petitioner is considered not to have adequately supported a finding that waiver of title would be an effective incentive to bring the invention to the point of practical application at the earliest practicable date. Although the NASA technical evaluator indicates that the invention would have very little value on the commercial market, since no actual applications are apparent and such applications appear to be remote, it is nevertheless considered that waiver of title might encourage the Petitioner to seek possible future commercial applications of the invention. However, although the Petitioner is considered to have the necessary experience, knowhow, and technical competence to proceed with the requisite further development of the invention, it appears not to have indicated specific plans or intentions to actually engage in further development efforts calculated to eventually commercially exploit the specific invention involved in the present petition, should its requested waiver be granted.

On the basis of all the above-enumerated findings, the Inventions and Contributions Board concludes that the best interests of the United States would not be served by waiving title under Section 1245,106 of the NASA Patent Waiver Regulations of June 1, 1966, and therefore RECOMMENDS THE DENIAL OF THE PETITION.

PETITIONER: Honeywell, Inc.

CONTRACT: INVENTION:

STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Petitioner, Honeywell, Inc., is a contractor of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, under P. O. M5J7XA-450012, awarded under Prime Contract NAS 9-150 with North American Aviation. The petition was made for waiver of title of the United States in an invention entitled "Control Apparatus," described in an attachment to the petition. The invention was made by Daniel J. Sikorra, an employee of the Petitioner, in the performance of work required under the above-identified contract, and in the manner specified in Section 305(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as determined by the Administrator. The petition was considered by the Inventions and Contributions Board on October 3 and December 7, 1966.

The Board, having duly considered the allegations and claims of the above-identified petition, expressly makes the findings required under Section 1245.106(b) of the NASA Patent Waiver Regulations (1966), (which Section, in its entirety, is hereby expressly incorporated by reference), and concludes that the invention does not fall within the enumerated proscriptions of the cited Section. The reasons for the Board's findings are stated below, corresponding in each case to the respective criterion set forth in each subsection.

SECTION 1245.106(b)(1). The invention relates to a reflex amplifier that is used in a demodulator that converts an AC signal from a resolver into a DC signal that is applied to an integrator. The present amplifier was developed for use in the Apollo spacecraft, and is mainly applied where simultaneous rectification and amplifica

SECTION 1245.106(b)(4). The invention is in the field of technology of electronic amplifiers. The areas of rectification and amplification of signals have been extensively explored by many private individuals and companies, so that a large amount of private capital has been spent in the development of this field. Petitioner asserts that it has for many years devoted considerable effort toward the development of circuitry, both for rectification and amplification. Electronic amplifiers, as is well known, are used by almost all electronics manufacturers; specific uses for such devices are in computers, control systems, radio and TV. There are many varieties of reflex amplifiers on the market today, so that there are numerous techniques for

amplifying a signal; accordingly, the acquisition of exclusive rights to this invention would not confer on the contractor a preferred or dominant position.

The Board further expressly finds, as required by Section 1245.106(c), that in view of the Petitioner's plans and intentions, waiver of title would be an effective incentive to bring the invention to the point of practical application at the earliest practicable date. The Petitioner has stated that without title to the invention its commercial exploitation would be long delayed, if undertaken at all, because of the risk of loss of capital investment without some assurance of receiving a fair return. Private ownership of commercial rights to the invention would to a large extent provide this assurance, and would therefore be an effective incentive for the Petitioner to pursue promptly further development and commercialization. This is evidenced by the attached affadavit by Mr. William Egerer, who holds the position of Principal Engineer in the Petitioner's employ, and is responsible for the electrical and mechanical design and specification of circuits

for the H-14 commercial autopilot. More specifically, the affiant avers that he is interested in the subject invention for inclusion in a new design of a commercial autopilot, and is now investigating the subject invention, and will do everything in his power to fully investigate it and allocate private corporate funds towards its further development and commercialization. The reflex-amplifier of the subject invention, because of its inherent null stability and accuracy, would be very useful as a building block for a commercial autopilot localizer and glideslope navigation coupler. These circuits will have to exhibit stability and accuracy previously not required of autopilots, which he believes the subject invention can supply.

On the basis of all the above-enumerated findings, the Inventions and Contributions Board concludes that the interests of the United States would best be served by waiving title under Section 1245.106 of the NASA Patent Waiver Regulations of June 1, 1966, and therefore RECOMMENDS THE GRANT OF THE PETITION.

7

PETITIONER: United Aircraft Corp.

CONTRACT: INVENTION:

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS: The Petitioner, United Aircraft Corp., is a contractor of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, under P.O. 2-18828-c, awarded under Prime Contract NAS 9-1100 with Grumman Aircraft. The petition was made for waiver of title of the United States in an invention entitled "Spherical Tank Gauge," described in an attachment to the petition. The invention was made by Harvey A. Smith, an employee of the Petitioner, in the performance of work required under the above-identified contract, and in the manner specified in Section 305(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as determined by the Administrator. The petition was considered by the Inventions and Contributions Board on October 3, 1966.

The Board, having duly considered the allegations and claims of the above-identified petition, expressly makes the findings required under Section 1245.106(b) of the NASA Patent Waiver Regulations (1966), (which Section, in its entirety, is hereby expressly incorporated by reference), and concludes that the invention does not fall within the enumerated proscriptions of the cited Section. The reasons for the Board's findings are stated below, corresponding in each case to the respective criterion set forth in each subsection.

SECTION 1245.106(b)(1). The invention, an instrument for measuring the quantity of liquid in a tank that is adapted for use in a zero-gravity environment, is not directly related to a governmental program for creating, developing, or improving products for use by the general public; rather, it was developed for the environmental-control system of the LEM, so as to enable the astronaut accurately to evaluate, test, and read off the quantity of liquid in the tank.

INVENTIONS AND CONTRIBUTIONS BOARD: SECTION 1245,106(b)(2). The invention is a liquid-measuring instrument that is particularly adapted for use in a zero-gravity environment. It is clear that the invention will not be required by governmental regulations for use by the general public. SECTION 1245.106(b)(3). The invention is not directly related to the public health or public welfare. More particularly, the liquid-measuring device of the subject invention is adapted to provide a reading in a zero-gravity environment; such use does not have a direct or an immediate impact on the public health or public welfare. SECTION 1245.106(b)(4). The invention is in the field of technology of liquid-measuring instruments. Instruments for measuring fluid volumes such as liquid-level indicators have been developed largely without the aid of Government funding; this is evidenced by applications of such devices in virtually all industries engaged in liquid storage and transfer. Moreover, the Petitioner asserts that instrumentation for measuring the quantity of liquid in a tank possesses mutual technological problems, whether it be for gravitational or nongravitational use, and that Hamilton Standard Division of United Aircraft Corp. has been involved in this technology since its inception. The brochures attached to the petition support the Petitioner's claim that it is actively engaged in instrumentation of various types, including liquid-measuring devices. Because of the vast R&D already done in this field, and, moreover, since there are alternative liquid-measuring devices presently avail

that employ elastic diaphragms of various thicknesses, as does this invention, the acquisition of exclusive rights to the invention would not confer on the Petitioner a preferred or dominant position.

However, the Board further expressly finds that although waiver of title is not proscribed by Section 1245.106(b), it is precluded by the Petitioner's failure to meet the requirements of Section 1245.106(c). Although the Petitioner states that "If United Aircraft does not acquire title to the patent issuing on this invention, it is highly unlikely that it will initiate a program to develop the invention to the point of commercial marketability," nevertheless the Petitioner does not discuss its plans and intentions regarding development and marketing of the invention, if waiver of title should be granted. While the Board has found that a patent licensing program incorporating a particular invention may be an effective means to make the benefits of an invention accessible to the public at an early time, such finding was made upon information as to the administration and effectiveness of the program. Where

licensing negotiations have already been entered into, waiver of title may be found to be an effective incentive, where knówhow, background technology, consulting services, etc., are made part of the licensing agreement. Thus, the Petitioner's bare statement that it has a standard policy of making licenses available to the public does not support a finding that waiver of title would be an effective incentive to bring the invention to the point of practical application at the earliest practicable date.

On the basis of all the above-enumerated findings, the Inventions and Contributions Board concludes that the best interests of the United States would not be served by waiving title under Section 1245,106 of the NASA Patent Waiver Regulations of June 1, 1966, and therefore RECOMMENDS THE DENIAL OF THE PETITION.