Full opinion text
OPINION PER CURIAM: This case comes before the court on defendant’s exceptions to the recommended decision of Trial Judge Joseph V. Colaianni, filed April 30,1975, pursuant to Rule 134(h), having been submitted on the briefs and oral argument of counsel for plaintiff and defendant. Upon consideration thereof, since the court agrees with the trial judge’s recommended decision, as hereinafter set forth, it hereby affirms and adopts the same as the basis for its judgment in this case. It is therefore concluded that claims 7, 8 and 13 of United States Letters Patent No. 2,967,997 are valid and have been used and/or manufactured by or for defendant, without authorization or license from plaintiff and that plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable and entire compensation therefor. Accordingly, judgment is entered for plaintiff to that effect with the amount of plaintiff’s recovery to be determined pursuant to Rule 131(c)(2). OPINION OF TRIAL JUDGE COLAIANNI, Trial Judge: Plaintiff, Rel-Reeves, Inc., seeks reasonable and entire compensation under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 for unauthorized use by the Government of its patented invention. The issue of liability is the only one presently before the court. An accounting trial, if it becomes necessary, will be held after the issue of liability has been finally adjudicated. The patent in suit, United States Letters Patent No. 2,967,997 (hereinafter referred to as the “McCoy” patent), issued on January 10, 1961, on an invention entitled, “Method and Apparatus for Checking Electronic Analog Computers.” .All rights in the patent were assigned, by Rawley D. McCoy, the inventor, to Reeves Instrument Corp. As a result of a series of mergers and sales, the patent in suit and all claims thereunder, including the present suit, are now owned by Rel-Reeves, Inc. Although defendant’s answer and amended answer originally contested the validity of the McCoy patent, validity no longer is an issue. In defendant’s own words: The issue of validity of these claims [7, 8 and 13] is no longer contested by the Government in view of the settlements in related patent suits brought by plaintiff against two of the Government’s indemnifying suppliers of accused computers. Beckman Instruments, Inc. * * * and Electronic Associates, Inc. * * *. The issue of validity was fully litigated in Reeves Instrument Corporation et al. v. Beckman Instruments Inc., 161 USPQ 450 (C.D.Cal.1968), affirmed, 444 F.2d 263, 170 U.S.P.Q. 74 (C.A.9th, 1971), cert. denied 404 U.S. 951 [92 S.Ct. 283, 30 L.Ed.2d 268] (1971). Defendant, accordingly, now bases its defense against plaintiff’s charge of infringement on: (1) the existence of either an express or implied license under the McCoy patent; and (2) the argument that the claims at issue should be narrowly construed to prevent them from covering the apparatus procured and/or used by it. Defendant thus urges that the following issues are to be resolved by this court: (a) Whether the terms of Navy Contract NOas 52-1142-c granted the United States a royalty-free license to practice the “problem check” improvement covered, by the McCoy patent; (b) Whether the United States is entitled to a royalty-free, express license under the “subject invention” clause of Navy Contract NOas 54-545-c; (c) Whether the plaintiff should be equitably estopped to deny the United States has an implied royalty-free license in the McCoy patent; and (d) Whether, upon failing to find that defendant has established either an express or implied license, claims 7, 8 and 13 of the McCoy patent should be narrowly construed to cover only the “first-order loops” of analog computers. For reasons hereinafter set forth, it is concluded that the patent is valid and the inventions covered by claims 7, 8 and 13 have been used and/or manufactured by or for defendant without authorization or license from plaintiff. Background The patent in suit relates to a method and apparatus for checking electronic analog computers. The patent discloses and claims both a “dynamic” and “static” checking apparatus; however, the claims at bar, Nos. 7, 8 and 13, are only directed to static checks. The importance of electronic computers as design tools was recognized at least as early as the April 20,1955, filing date of the McCoy patent, and the accuracy of electronic computers even at that early date was sufficiently high to encourage such use. While both digital and analog computers were popular and in wide use in the mid-1950’s, the McCoy patent is useful only to check components and connections of electronic analog computers. Analog computers, as distinguished from digital computers, employ distinct computing elements for each mathematical operation required to reach the solution of a given problem. The computing elements, or computer variables, are made to obey mathematical relations analogous to the variables of the original problem, and recordings, or measurements, of the behavior of the computer elements provide the solutions to the problem under study. The variables of the analog computer described in the McCoy patent are represented by d.c. voltages that vary with time. The principal computing elements in such a computer is a d.c. amplifier with a capacitive feedback network, otherwise known as an integrator circuit. Moreover, analog computers are broadly classified as specialized (limited purpose) or general purpose types. General and specialized d.c. analog computers utilize similar machine elements. However, while in specialized computers, the elements are prewired in a fixed-circuit relationship, the computing elements of general purpose computers can be easily rearranged by means of patchcords. Problem parameters are established by the use of adjustable potentiometers or rheostats. However, the flexibility achieved in a general purpose analog computer by the use of patchcords and adjustable potentiometers makes it vulnerable to the introduction of human error. In addition to its susceptibility to “human” error, errors can also occur because of the malfunctioning of one or more of the many computer components. In order to increase confidence in the validity of computer solutions, various testing procedures were resorted to by operators of general purpose analog computers. Each of the prior art testing procedures has been found to be deficient for a number of reasons, including the significant number of hours needed to run such tests, the high costs involved to conduct the tests, and the fact that the tests disturbed the patchcord connections and/or potentiometer settings. The McCoy patent, as the following quotation indicates, see col. 1, lines 36 to 52, was directed at overcoming these important pri- or art limitations in the testing of electronic analog computers: Electronic computers are recognized today as being indispensable tools in the field of Dynamic Systems Engineering. Generally speaking, present day electronic computers have excellent accuracy, but this accuracy is meaningful only if the computer setup which includes problem coding, patch connections and scale factor potentiometer settings are free from error and the components of the computer are operating properly. In setting up a computer for the solution of a particular problem, several hundred or more connections and settings may have to be made by the operator and there is always the possibility of human error in addition to the possibility of improper operation of the components in the computer. Hence it is of the utmost importance to be able to check the operation of the computer after it has been set up for the solution of a particular problem in order to establish the validity of the results obtained. The patent in suit teaches how, through the incorporation of switching relays and appropriate voltage sources within the circuit of each integrator of an analog computer, the connections between the computer components, as well as the proper operation of the components themselves, may be tested. The incorporation of the relays, their associated circuits, and voltages into the integrators eliminated the necessity for an operator to manually modify the connections and settings of the computer both before and after a testing operation. Particularly, the claims at bar disclose and cover a structural combination which is capable of statically testing all components except the integrator capacitors of an analog computer. The patent in suit, see fig. 1 which is reproduced at finding 38, shows the computer setup required to solve a relatively simple missile trajectory problem. The problem setup includes integrators 10 and 16. Fig. 1 shows the existence of a number of computation loops associated with each of the integrators. As shown, one loop comprises integrator 16, electronic multiplier 18, and potentiometer 20. Another loop includes integrator 10, resolver-servo 12, amplifier 15, the amplifier portion 22 of division unit 19, amplifier 23, and potentiometer 24. In addition, fig. 1 discloses what is commonly referred to as a “second-order loop,” because of the inclusion of both integrators 10 and 16, and consists of integrator 10, resolver-servo unit 12, amplifier 14, integrator 16, potentiometer 17, division unit 19, inverting amplifier 23, and potentiometer 24. It is not unusual for a problem to include single integrator loops, loops including two or more integrators, and, as well, loops having no integrators. Fig. 2 of the McCoy patent, at finding 39, shows a typical integrator circuit with its associated input resistor network, and, as well, the switching networks and voltage sources needed to carry out the patented McCoy invention. While each integrator of the computer will be modified in a similar fashion, only one integrator is shown in fig. 2 for purposes of illustration. Inputs to the integrators are made by way of the input resistor network and associated patchcord connections thereto. The data flow shown in fig. 1 occurs when the computer is in the “compute” or “operate” mode. However, before the computer is placed in this mode, it is switched to an “initial condition” or “reset” mode. As explained in detail by finding 40, during the “initial condition” mode,' the summing junction 29 of fig. 2 is grounded and the computing loops associated with each integrator are opened and each integrator is disabled by connecting a resistor (41 of fig. 2) across integrating capacitor 40. The initial condition voltages which represent the values of the variables at the start of a computation cycle are introduced into the appropriate integrators. These initial condition voltages are disconnected during the problem checking operation and are not used as test voltages during that operation. After the computer has been set up to solve a particular problem and before initiating the “compute” operation, it is customary to conduct a check of the computer’s static elements. As explained by the patent in suit, during problem check, the X and P.C. relays, as shown in fig. 2, are energized and the Y relay is de-energized. As a result, the integrator is converted into a negative feedback amplifier, the connection of the resistor network to the input of the integrator remains undisturbed, and the integrator output (lead 48) which normally is connected to other computing elements is connected to a source of predetermined test voltage. The test voltage is translated through various computing elements, multipliers, potentiometers, resolvers, etc., which are connected to the output of the integrator. In this arrangement, the operator can obtain voltage readings at various points in the computer, including the summing junction, and by comparing these voltages with precalculated theoretical voltages for the same test points, determine whether the various computer components and connections are operating properly. In operation, a test voltage is fed, by way of closed loops formed by the other computing elements and the input resistors, to the terminals of each integrator circuit. (See PX 409 accompanying finding 41.) The test voltage then flows through the negative-feedback amplifier 39 to an appropriate voltage measuring device 64. Since the output leads, which normally carry the signals from each of the integrators to other parts of the computer have been opened, it should be emphasized that the test voltages are only capable of flowing from the output of an integrator, through various computer elements in closed-loop association, to the input terminal of the same integrator. Accordingly, as plaintiff admits, the McCoy invention cannot test open-loop sections, loops that are open in the computation mode, or second and higher-order loops (loops having two or more integrators) of computer setups where there is no shunt path around the additional integrators in such loops which would permit the test voltage to return to the input terminal of an integrator. In the problem check mode described, the initial derivative signals are transmitted through the input resistor network to the summing junction and passed by the negative feedback amplifier to an appropriate voltage reading device. The patented invention thus permits the checking of various computing elements, including the patch connections to the integrators, the associated patchbay contacts, and the input circuits of the integrators, which consist of the input resistors and the connections to the summing junction. The Patent Claims Plaintiff urges that claims 7, 8 and 13 of McCoy are infringed by defendant. While each of the claims are discussed in considerable detail in the findings of fact, for purposes of illustration only, claim 13, the narrowest of the claims at bar, is reproduced in indented form to aid in the identification of its major sections: (a) Apparatus for testing an analog computer including at least one integrating circuit, * * * (b) * * * said integrating circuit having an input coupled to first terminal means of the remaining elements of the computer and an output coupled to second terminal means of the remaining elements of the computer to form a closed-loop system, the input of said integrating circuit including a series input resistor, * * * (c) * * * comprising in combination, means including switching means coupled to said integrating circuit, ' * * (d) * * * a source of known voltage coupled to said switching means, * * (e) * * * said switching means rendering said integrating circuit ineffective (f) * * * and supplying a known voltage to said second terminal means of the computer, * * * (g) * * * said known voltage being translated through the remaining elements of the computer to the series input resistor of said integrating circuit, * * (h) * * * and measuring means including amplifier means coupled to said series input resistor for measuring the response of the remaining elements of the computer to said known voltage. File Wrapper Estoppel Defendant contends that during the prosecution of its application, plaintiff modified its claims to read on checking circuits that are broader than the McCoy invention. Particularly, defendant argues that the original claims were all limited to “ * * * disconnecting the output of the integrator, substituting a ‘problem check’ voltage for the output, and measuring the output of the disabled integrator.” However, defendant charges that by amendment of October 1, 1956, plaintiff added claims that eventually matured into patent claims 7 and 8 and for the first time omitted the limitation that called for the problem check measurement to be made at the output of the integrator amplifier. As further support for its position, defendant points to a memorandum written by the agent prosecuting the application through the Patent Office. That memo states: I would like-to draw a set of broad claims if this is possible which will cover not only our own Problem Check invention, but the problem check systems of our competitors. Defendant thus argues that the purpose of omitting the claim limitation which required that the problem check measurement be made at the output of the integrator, was to— * * * preempt a class of checking circuits for analog computers whose principles, structure, design, approach, components, and operation are different from McCoy’s invention. Defendant’s arguments find no support in the record and thus must be rejected. To begin, it is not unusual for an applicant to modify pending claims. Indeed, it has long been established that claims may be amended to assure complete protection for what applicant originally intended to reserve for himself and to make express what amounts to nothing more than an equivalent of the original disclosure and claims. Jones v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 187 F.Supp. 293, 127 USPQ 411 (D.Col.1960), aff’d, 308 F.2d 705 (10th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 371 U.S. 952, 83 S.Ct. 509, 9 L.Ed.2d 501 (1963). As explained in findings 50-64, the drawings and specification as originally filed clearly required that voltage readings be made at various points of each integrator loop, including the summing junction. More particularly, col. 4, lines 56-70, states: After the computer has been connected with the proper settings for the computation of a particular problem, a static problem check is first carried out. Under such conditions, the relay P.C. is energized and a constant problem check voltage from the potentiometer 53 is substituted in the computer for the output of the integrator. The relay X is also energized and thus, the amplifier does not function as an integrator. This is done for each integrator in the computer and with the introduction of these constant voltages, output voltages will appear at each component in the computer, the values of which may be read and recorded by the read-out device. Under these conditions, the outputs of the integrators will be proportional to the initial value of the derivatives applied thereto. [Emphasis added.] In order for the outputs of the integrators to be proportional to their input signals, it is necessary that the “initial value of the derivatives” (the input to the integrators) find their way from the input resistor network to the summing junction, through the amplifier to the output terminals of the integrators. This was explained by McCoy to the Patent Office in the amendment of May 12, 1958, wherein he states: [I]n the static test of an analog computer, the integrator is disabled, and it is the input voltage at the input of the “disabled” integrator that is to be measured. Nevertheless, while it is the input voltage to the “disabled” integrator that is to be measured, the connection of the digital converter [voltage reading and recording device] 64 remains unchanged [remains connected to read the voltage at the output lead of the “disabled” integrator]. With the understanding that by measuring the output of the converted integrator, McCoy in fact is teaching and accomplishing a measurement of the amplified initial derivative signals which appear at the input of the integrator, it is concluded that plaintiff has from the filing of his application sought to patent the structural combination covered by claims 7, 8 and 13. Moreover, defendant’s charge that plaintiff’s amendments were improperly motivated in order to cover the later developments of competitors is equally unpersuasive in view of plaintiff’s continuous attempt to claim the inventions covered by claims 7, 8 and 13. In a review of a strikingly similar set of accusations and circumstances, the Southern District Court of Florida has stated: There is nothing inherently wrong or dishonest in amending claims in a pending application during the course of prosecution before the United States Patent Office in order to insure that the claims which ultimately appear in the issued patent will cover the commercial activity of third parties, whose potentially infringing activities are discovered subsequent to the filing of a patent application, so long as the claims are supported by the original patent application disclosure. Thus, whether or not * * * [patentee] was spurred into making broader claims in his then pending application by the appearance of the * * * [accused infringers’] publication is irrelevant; and the only legitimate issue of fact or law is whether [the] claims * * are supported by the original disclosure of the * * * application * * *. [359 F.Supp. at 954-55.] Equally unmeritorious is defendant’s contention that false and misleading statements were made to the Patent Office examiner during the prosecution of the McCoy application that limited the claims in suit to the circuit specifically illustrated in the drawings. Defendant particularly complains that the October 1, 1956, amendment which added application claims 15 and 16 (patent claims 7 and 8)— (1) for the first time recited that the input to the integrators was to be measured; and (2) for the first time added the limitation of closed feedback loops. These arguments have in part previously been treated and it, therefore, is only necessary at this point to discuss defendant’s contention regarding the added closed-feedback loop limitation. A review of the specification, drawing and claims as filed makes it abundantly clear that in carrying out the problem cheek operation McCoy intended to open the output lead (48) that connected each of the integrators with the rest of the computer, see fig. 2 of the patent. However, at the same time, the test voltage from potentiometer 58 was to be “ * * * substituted in the computer for the output of the integrator.” (Col. 4, lines 60-61 of the McCoy patent.) This test voltage was then translated through the circuit components connected to the output terminals of each of the integrators. Moreover, in order for the “ * * * outputs of the integrators * * * [to] be proportional to the initial value of the derivatives applied thereto * * * ” (Col. 4, lines 69-70), it is necessary, as previously explained, for the test voltages to eventually find their way back to the input terminals of each of the integrators. This is obviously only possible if closed loops between the output and input terminals of each of the integrators exist. It is thus concluded that plaintiff intended, from the filing of its application, to cover a combination which included closed-feedback loops. The language of claims 7 and 8 (application claims 15 and 16) did nothing more than expressly state what must be regarded as an equivalent of plaintiff’s original disclosure and claims. In addition, defendant urges that by the October 14, 1959, amendment the claims in suit were— * * * clearly limited * * * to circuits in which the test voltage is applied in place of the integrator circuit. Applicant thereby excluded from coverage circuits like those in Korn & Korn [see figure accompanying finding 67] in which the integrator cannot be removed during a static check and in which the static test voltage is applied at the initial condition terminals on the input side of the integrator. After careful consideration, defendant’s argument is found to be unconvincing and must also be rejected. The Korn & Korn prior art disclosed and taught the insertion of an initial condition voltage source at the integrator input, while at the same time requiring that the input resistor network be disconnected. Accordingly, the reference did not disclose a system which was capable of testing the input resistors and associated patchcord connections. In commenting on the disadvantages of the Korn & Korn circuit over the McCoy invention, the Circuit Court stated in the case of Reeves Instrument Corp. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 161 USPQ 450 (C.D. Cal.1968), aff’d, 444 F.2d 263, 267-68, 170 USPQ 74, 78 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 951, 92 S.Ct. 283, 30 L.Ed.2d 268 (1971): It was established at trial that certain aspects of an analog computer could be checked by applying the initial condition voltage as set forth above and then making certain measurements within the loop (which is open at the input to each integrator) prior to de-energizing the relay and proceeding with the desired computation. It was, however, equally established that this approach to checking had two substantial disadvantages. The first disadvantage to this approach stems from the fact that not all integrators in a given problem will require an initial condition voltage so that, in order to check the circuitry associated with these integrators, it would be necessary to establish some initial condition voltage for checking purposes. This voltage would, however, have to be removed prior to running the problem. The chance that the computer operator might forget to remove these checking voltages adds an extra source of possible human error into the system. The second disadvantage to this approach stems from the fact that it can check only limited portions of the loop. Particularly troublesome is the fact that it was not possible to check the crucial connections on the patch board which connect the input resistors to the integrators nor was it possible to check the integrator summing junctions since the loop is opened at the input to each integrator. In sum, this check was incomplete and, as found by the district court, caused “a disturbance of the problem set-up and an aggravation of the human error problem.” Indeed, a Beckman publication characterized these as the “two major loopholes” of the I.C. static check. Plaintiff’s invention, on the other hand, left the resistors and summing junction connections at the input side of the integrator undisturbed. As a result of reading the voltage which appears at the output of the converted amplifier, which, as previously explained, in fact amounts to a measurement of the integrator input, McCoy is able to check the input resistor network, the connections associated therewith, and, as well the connection from the summing junction to the input terminal of the converted integrator. Accordingly, defendant’s arguments that the limitations added to the claims in suit during their pendency in the Patent Office prevent them from covering the accused circuit are found to be unmeritorious. Validity As previously noted, because of settlements reached in'suits brought by plaintiff against two of the defendant’s suppliers, the validity of claims 7, 8 and 13 is no longer contested by the Government. Defendant agrees that the validity of claims 7, 8 and 13 of the McCoy patent was fully litigated in Reeves Instrument Corp. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., supra. Infringement Plaintiff urges that the inventions covered by claims 7, 8 and 13 of the McCoy patent have been used or manufactured by or for defendant without license from plaintiff or lawful right. Plaintiff’s petition states that analog computers manufactured for defendant by the following companies embody the invention as described and covered by the claims of the McCoy patent: (a) Beckman Instruments, Inc. (its 1100, 2100 and 2200 series computers); (b) Electronic Associates, Inc. (its models 16-231R, 16-221R, 680 and 8800, as well as some late versions of 16-24D, 16-31R and 16-131R); (c) Applied Dynamics, Inc. (its model AD-2-64PBC); (d) Comcor, Inc., a subsidiary of Astrodata, Inc.; (e) GPS Instrument Co., Inc.; and (f) Milgo Electronics Corp. (its model 4010). By way of its amended answer, defendant denied that it had possession of sufficient information concerning the nature and extent of the “alleged infringement,” but did admit purchasing systems from each of the above-listed corporations except Milgo Electronics Corp. It is hornbook law that the claims of a patent set forth the formal definitions of the invention and must be looked to in determining if there has been infringement. See Strumskis v. United States, 474 F.2d 623, 200 Ct.Cl. 668 (1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1067, 94 S.Ct. 576, 38 L.Ed.2d 472. However, while a claim cannot be limited or expanded to give a patentee something other than what is claimed, courts are not confined to the language of the claims in interpreting their meanings. Young v. United States, 204 Ct.Cl. 867, 179 USPQ 801, cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1002, 95 S.Ct. 322, 42 L.Ed.2d 278 (1974). Indeed, it is necessary, in construing the meaning of claims, to resort to the patent specification, its drawings and its file wrapper. Autogiro Co. v. United States, 384 F.2d 391, 181 Ct.Cl. 55, 155 USPQ 697 (1967). At the same time, claim interpretation should be done on a reasoned basis to avoid unjust results. Emery Industries, Inc. v. Schumann, 111 F.2d 209, 45 USPQ 12 (7th Cir. 1940). With these guidelines and teachings in mind, we now consider whether plaintiff has shown an infringement of any of the claims at bar. Initially, it is important to point out that the parties have stipulated that drawing X500C, which accompanies finding 49, is representative of the problem check systems incorporated in the accused computers supplied to the Government. Defendant argues that the claims do not read on the accused representative system because: (1) they should be interpreted to cover devices which read the signals at the output of the integrator; (2) the accused system does not disconnect the output of the integrator’s operational amplifier from the rest of the closed loop as taught by the McCoy patent; (3) the accused system disconnects the summing junction of the integrator from the input of the integrator amplifier during problem check; and (4) the accused system uses a separate operational amplifier to measure the summing junction current during the test mode. A number of these arguments have directly or inferentially been touched upon in dealing with defendant’s file wrapper estoppel arguments. As discussed in considerable detail in findings 72 through 88, it is concluded that all of the elements of claims 7, 8 and 13 both literally and substantively are found in the representative accused system as shown by drawing X500C. Accordingly, the accused system is found to infringe claims 7, 8 and 13. However, the claims are not found to cover open-loop sections of a computer setup (i. e., loops open during the computational mode of the computer). Moreover, the claims are not found to cover second and higher-order loops of computer setups where there is no shunt path around the additional integrators which would enable the test voltages to return to the integrator input. License Defenses In addition to the defense of noninfringement, defendant also contends, under a series of related theories, that it has a royalty-free license under the McCoy problem check patent. Attention is now directed to defendant’s contention of being licensed under the patent in suit as a result of the background patent rights clause of contract No. Nonr-378(01), later renumbered contract NOas 52-1142-c. By way of background, the parties to this lawsuit entered into a series of contracts beginning at least as early as 1946, for analog computer-related projects. Specifically, on June 10, 1946, the Department of the Navy awarded Reeves Instrument Co. (hereinafter referred to as “Reeves” or “plaintiff”) contract No. N60ori-128. This contract consisted of Task Orders I and II. Task Order I covered the development of a guided missile simulator and the operation of a simulation laboratory in which research and development on guided missile simulation was to be carried on. Task Order II called for the development and construction of a rapid and precise automatic analog computer suitable for detailed simulation of guided missiles. The development of this simulator was based on available computing devices and techniques used in fire control equipment. Task Order II included the construction of prototype simulators capable of solving guided missile equations and a complete guided missile simulator. The guided missile simulator was to be capable of solving equations describing in detail the space trajectory and behavior of any missile under any type of control, while taking into account the motion of a target and the motion of a control point. On June 12, 1947, Task Order III was added to contract N6ori-128 for the purpose of providing the Navy with a simulation laboratory, the Project Cyclone Laboratory, which was to be operated by the Reeves Analysis and Computer Group. To this end, the laboratory was to conduct guided missile simulator research and evolve techniques and methods for solving practical guided missile problems. The development and construction of the prototype simulation equipment were completed in early 1947. The guided missile simulator of Task Order II was completed in early 1949. With the satisfactory demonstration in February 1949 of the guided missile simulator solving a three-dimensional guided missile problem, Task Order II was substantially completed. Additional developments and modifications to the guided missile simulator after February 1949 were done under Task Order III. In 1949, a new computing laboratory of REACs (an acronym for Reeves Electronic Analog Computer) was added to Project Cyclone under Task Order III. In addition, the older existing REACs, which were built in 1947, were modified to provide continuous automatic chopper balancing. By 1951, the Navy had decided to modernize Project Cyclone by replacing the large, permanently connected ballistic computer with a laboratory consisting of REACs. The new REACs were procured under a separate Office of Naval Research contract No. Nonr-378(00) — Nonr-378(01). The parties have stipulated that the equipment was delivered, installed and accepted by the Navy by the end of 1952. With the transfer of cognizance of Project Cyclone on June 1, 1952, from the Office of Naval Research to the Bureau of Aeronautics of the Navy Department, Task Order III of contract N6ori-128 was renumbered NOas 52-1141-c, and contract Nonr-378(00)— Nonr-378(01) was renumbered NOas 52-1142-c. Reeves was awarded contract NOas 53-383-c by the Bureau of Aeronautics for the continued operation of Project Cyclone in 1953. Also during 1953, an ELECOM 100 digital computer was added to the Project Cyclone Laboratory to perform check solutions for analog computations. In 1953, the Project Cyclone Laboratory consisted of three main laboratories. Laboratory 1 was equipped with new REACs funded under contract NOas 52-1142-c. Laboratory 2, which was set up to conduct test simulation, housed the original 1947 REAC. Laboratory 3 contained the ELECOM 100 digital computer and the REACs added in 1949. In 1954, Reeves was awarded contract NOas 54-545-c by the Bureau of Aeronautics for the continued operation of Project Cyclone. By letter of October 11, 1954, in reference to contract NOas 54-545-c, Reeves proposed to convert Laboratory 3 to pre-patch, a removable plugboard arrangement. The proposal was approved by the Bureau of Aeronautics in a November 16, 1954, letter. By letter of April 29, 1955, Reeves proposed to incorporate the problem check invention covered by the patent in suit in the Laboratory 3 computers at the same time that it was making the pre-patch installation. In addition, at the Navy’s request, Reeves, on December 29, 1954, submitted a proposal for new equipment for Project Cyclone. Reeves’ proposal included an enclosure, entitled “Specifications on Equipment,” which was the preliminary specification for the new REAC C^lOO computer and included a description of problem check. The problem check description was accompanied by a notation, “Patent Applied For.” As of December 29, 1954, steps had been taken by Reeves to initiate the filing of a patent application on the McCoy problem check invention, but it had not actually filed an application in the Patent Office. As a result of the December 29, 1954, proposal, as well as further negotiations between the parties, the Navy awarded Reeves supply contract NOas 55-603-f in 1955 for delivery of a REAC C-400 computer. By agreement of the parties, that contract did not contain a patent rights clause. In 1955, Reeves was awarded contract NOas 55-571-c for the continued operation of Project Cyclone. By March 1956, the patented problem check static test modifications had been made to the Laboratory 3 equipment of Project Cyclone under contract NOas 55-571-c. However, while the static problem check modifications had been installed by March 1956, the parties have stipulated that it was not necessarily operating as of that time. Contract NOas 56-1089-c, which called for the continued operation of Project Cyclone, was awarded to Reeves in 1956. During 1957, the oldest computer in Project Cyclone, dating back to 1947, which was housed in Laboratory 2, was replaced by a REAC C-400 computer. The computer was delivered under contract NOas 55-603-f, however, operation of the laboratory was done pursuant to contract NOas 56-1089-c. Project Cyclone continued to be operated under Department of Navy contracts NOas 59-6215-c, NOw 60-0399-c and NOw 62-0149-c until 1962, at which time Government sponsorship of the project ceased. Defendant has no Rights under the Terms of Navy Contract NOas 52-1142-c The portion of the 1951 Navy contract NOas 52-1142-c, hereinafter sometimes referred to as “1142-c,” which defendant introduced into evidence, contains the following Section H “Background Patent Rights Clause”: SECTION H In addition to the rights granted to the Government in Section 29 of the contract, the Contractor hereby grants to the Government, under any patents now or hereafter issued with respect to which the Contractor now has or prior to completion or final settlement of the contract may acquire, the right to grant licenses without becoming liable to pay compensation to others because of such grant, the right to reproduce or to have reproduced articles or materials substantially the same as those delivered to the Government hereunder, and any modifications, or improvements thereof, and to practice or cause to be practiced processes developed in the performance of this contract, and to use in their entirety and dispose of in accordance with law articles or materials so reproduced. The 1142-c contract, nominally designated as a research and development task order, called for the delivery of certain equipment, including a number of REAC C-101 computers, in order to modernize Laboratory 1 of Project Cyclone. The C-101 REACs were intended to replace the large permanently connected ballistic computers then in use. The C-101 REACs called for were substantially identical to the line of commercially marketed Reeves’ computers, except that they did not have pre-patch capabilities. Defendant does not urge that the McCoy invention was made under the 1142-c contract. Indeed, the problem check invention was never even installed on any of the REACs delivered to the Government under the 1142-c contract. Rather, defendant attempts to argue that the problem check invention of McCoy represents an “improvement” within the meaning of Section H, and that defendant should, accordingly, be granted a license under the McCoy patent. Thus, defendant first points to the work provisions contained in the February 1, 1953, contract NOas 53-383-c and the April 30, 1954, contract NOas 54-545-c, see findings 114 to 117, as evidence of the interest by the Government to insure the validity of the solutions obtained from the REACs used in Project Cyclone. Building on that premise, defendant next contends that the 1142-c contract was not terminated until midnight of June 30,1955. Finally, defendant notes that the McCoy patent was filed in the Patent Office on April 20, 1955. On the basis of the above, defendant argues that the McCoy invention is an improvement which was made before the alleged June 30,1955, termination date of the 1142-e contract and thus comes within the terms of the Section H provision. Defendant’s argument fails for a number of reasons. In the first place, defendant has failed to provide the court with a complete copy of the 1142-c contract. It should be recalled that originally that contract was designated as Nonr-378(00) — Nonr-378(01). The 378(00) portion allegedly contained the basic terms of the agreement, while the 378(01) portion was a task order. Defendant has failed to submit any of the 378(00) section of the contract. Defendant shrugs off the absence of that portion of the contract on the grounds that it only intends to rely on the 378(01) task order. However, not only was the 378(01) task order introduced into evidence incomplete, but the record shows that the record copy has been constructed from at least two different sources. Plaintiff thus argues that: In view of this state of affairs and the fact that provisions found in one section of a Government contract are frequently amended or even deleted by language in other sections * * *, there is clearly no rational basis for determining just what provisions existed in the actual contract. A review of relevant authorities indicates that complete contracts do not have to be introduced into the record in all circumstances. However, the cases in which incomplete contracts have been introduced and relied on have required supplemental testimony to show that the missing portions were insignificant and/or had no impact on the issues at bar. In the instant case, no testimony has been received to show that later amendments did not modify the Section H clause upon which the Government here relies. However, defendant’s arguments concerning its reproduction right under the McCoy patent on the basis of Section H fail for another reason. Specifically, Section H, in pertinent part, provides that the contractor grant— * * * to the Government, under any patents now or hereafter issued with respect to which the Contractor now has, or prior to completion or final settlement of the contract may acquire, * * * the right to reproduce or to have reproduced articles or materials substantially the same as those delivered to the Government hereunder, and any modifications, or improvements thereof, * * *. The basis for the Government’s assertion that the 1142-c contract was not completed until June 30,1955, appears to be a June 21, 1955, form letter of inquiry that was required by the Department of Defense’s Appropriation Act of 1955. That letter points out that the inquiry was made because the 1142-e contract had not been certified for continuance beyond June 30,1955, and that the Appropriation Act required termination as of that date for all contracts financed under certain annual appropriations. A reading of the June 21, 1955, letter, and particularly the following language, indicates that the letter was merely a form letter which cannot be taken to establish that the 1142-c contract was terminated on June 30, 1955: Accordingly, you are hereby notified that to the extent of the items and/or lots under Contract NOa(s) 52-1142-c * * * such items and/or lots not completed as of midnight 30 June 1955 are hereby terminated as of such date * *. [Emphasis added.] This language clearly shows that the purpose of the letter was to generally deal with uncertified contracts that would not be completed before June 30, 1955, or had not been previously completed. It certainly does not preclude the possibility that the 1142-c contract had been completed prior to the June 30, 1955, date. Moreover, if the 1142-c contract had been terminated by the June 21, 1955, letter, plaintiff would have submitted certain contract related information required by that letter. Specifically, the letter required: You are requested to notify the Contracting Officer in detail as promptly as practicable after 30 June 1955 of the status of performance of items and/or lots affected by this termination, including information setting forth the extent of completion and an estimate of the termination claim, if any. There has been no showing that plaintiff made a claim as a result of the “termination,” nor has defendant introduced any of the detailed information requested in the event that the June 21, 1955 letter had served to terminate the 1142-c contract. To the contrary, the trial record indicates that plaintiff completed the 1142-c contract long prior to the June 30, 1955, date urged by defendant, and probably by late 1952. This is not only shown by the testimony of record, see finding 110, but also by a stipulation entered into by the parties. That stipulation provides: 6. In 1951, it was decided to modernize the operation of Project Cyclone by replacing the large, permanently connected ballistic computer with a laboratory consisting of REACs. This new equipment was procured under a separate contract Nonr-378(00), Nonr-378(01) awarded to Reeves Instrument Corporation by the Office of Naval Research. The equipment was delivered, installed and accepted by the end of 1952. The record thus establishes that the McCoy patent filing date of April 20, 1955, is long after the completion date of the 1142-c contract. Accordingly, even assuming that the Section H background patent rights clause was to be applied to a situation such as the one at bar, it is concluded that the plaintiff did not have, prior to completion or final settlement of the 1142-c contract, any rights under the McCoy patent. Thus, defendant is not entitled to any reproduction rights under the McCoy patent. Defendant is not Licensed Under the McCoy Patent as a Result of Terms of Navy Contract NOas 54-545-c Defendant next argues that it has an express license to practice the inventions disclosed and claimed in the McCoy patent by virtue of the terms of the patent rights clause contained in its 1954 Navy contract NOas 54-545-c, hereinafter referred to as “545-c,” with plaintiff. As previously explained, the 1954 contract was one of a series between the parties which continued the operation of the Project Cyclone facilities. Defendant couples the work statement and the subject invention clauses of the 545-c contract with the argument that McCoy is a “Technical Personnel” as defined by that contract, to urge the conclusion that it is licensed under the patent in suit. Defendant leans heavily on the decisions of this court in the cases of Mine Safety Appliances Co. v. United States, 176 Ct.Cl. 777, 364 F.2d 385 (1966), and Technitrol, Inc. v. United States, 194 Ct.Cl. 596, 440 F.2d 1362 (1971), for legal support. However, as will become apparent, the facts of the case at bar dictate against reaching a similar result. While defendant points out that in some instances the work to be done under the contract was designated as research and developmental, a comparison of the 545-c work statement with the work statements of predecessor Project Cyclone contracts illustrates that important changes had occurred between the granting of the 1946 Project Cyclone contract and the 1954 contract in question. Furthermore, in order to appreciate defendant’s argument, it is necessary to reemphasize the importance to analog computer users in having some assurance of the accuracy and validity of the results obtained. This problem was a recurring one that had plagued analog computer users from at least as early as 1946, the inception date of Project Cyclone. This consideration was equally important to Project Cyclone, since, as established from a review of the various contracts involved in this case, as well as the proof of record, it is concluded that its main purpose was to enable defendant to avail itself of plaintiff’s expertise in solving complex problems through the use of simulation equipment. It thus comes as no surprise that concern for the validity of the results obtained should find its way into some of the early contracts between the parties. Looking first to Section A of the Task Order III portion of N6ori-128, plaintiff was required to “ * * * take all necessary steps to insure the validity of computer results.” By 1949, that clause was expanded to read as follows: (v) Validity of Results. The Contractor shall take necessary steps to insure the validity of conclusions reached by application of the Simulator to research problems. The Contractor shall conduct research to evolve the most efficient methods of checking research problems and will apply such methods as adequately as possible to all research work conducted by the Contractor. The results of such checking procedures shall be reported by the Contractor in the Post Analysis report on each research problem. [Emphasis added.] In accordance with that mandate, plaintiff hired Professor F. J. Murray as a private consultant to assist the Project Cyclone personnel in conducting an intensive investigation into error analysis techniques. In addition, an investigation was made to determine if digital computers could be used to provide independent digital solutions to the assigned problems. As a result, plaintiff recommended that the Navy purchase a digital computer for use in checking the solution to simulator problems. The recommendation was followed and in 1952 an ELECOM-lOO digital computer was procured from the Underwood Corporation under Navy contract NOas 52-869-f. While both the 1953 contract, NOas 53-383-c, as well as the 545-c contract continued to set forth the requirement that plaintiff “take necessary steps to insure the validity of the solution to simulator problems,” those contracts no longer authorized any research into problem checking. The testimony of record is compatible with the above analysis and is totally devoid of any post-1952 showing that either the Navy or plaintiff was concerned with the development of new techniques for the checking of problems on Project Cyclone. The use of the ELECOM-lOO computer at Project Cyclone is the only reasonable explanation for the absence of provisions calling for research into the checking of analog computer solutions in both the 1953 and 1954 contracts. Indeed, the record makes it abundantly clear that the ELE-COM-lOO was successfully used for that purpose and found to be ideally suited for the task of supplying independent check solutions prior to the running of problems on the analog computer. The undisputed testimony establishes that Project Cyclone personnel believed that the ELECOM-lOO was providing the best available checking techniques to insure the validity of the analog computer solutions. The above analysis clearly highlights that the parties had completed research to their mutual satisfaction in the area of problem checking well before the NOas 54-545-e contract was entered into. Ignoring all of the above dealings between the Navy and plaintiff, defendant argues that the Section C, Item 1(e), provision, which required plaintiff to take necessary steps to insure the validity of the solutions to simulator problems, along with the following Section C, Item 3, requirement, establishes that the invention covered by the McCoy problem check patent comes within the research work called for by the 545-c contract: Item 3. The Contractor shall make necessary modifications and improvements to existing equipment and shall develop, construct and furnish hereunder such additional equipment as may be needed to efficiently solve assigned problems; provided, however, that the contractor obtains authorization from the Bureau of Aeronautics in writing prior to the development, modification or construction of equipment hereunder. A review of findings of fact 113 to 118 makes clear that the Section C, Item 3, and Section A, Item 1(e), provisions, and their counterparts in prior contracts, were from the inception of Project Cyclone intended to cover auxiliary simulation equipment, such as plotting boards, function generators, output tables, etc., needed to efficiently solve assigned problems. That those provisions were not intended to authorize work in the area of problem check is clear from the fact that plaintiff had at least as early as 1952 completed research on problem checking under another contract provision. Moreover, the Section C, Item 3, provision of the 1954 contract did not authorize plaintiff to make any modifications or improvements to existing equipment unless it had obtained “ * * * authorization from the Bureau of Aeronautics in writing prior to development, modification or construction of the equipment hereunder.” While defendant urges that the McCoy invention was made under the above provisions, no evidence is offered to show that any authorization by the Bureau of Aeronautics was given to plaintiff to conduct research and/or development leading up to the invention involved in this suit. In view of the above, it is concluded that the 1954 contract did not contemplate nor require any research and development work in the field of problem check. We next consider the patent rights clause, Article 36, of the 545-c contract, which provides in pertinent part: (a) As used in this clause, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below: (i) The term “Subject Invention” means any invention, improvement or discovery (whether or not patentable) conceived or first actually reduced to practice either (A) in the performance of the experimental, developmental or research work called for under this contract, or (B) in the performance of any experimental, developmental or research work relating to the subject matter of this contract which was done upon the understanding that a contract would be awarded. (ii) The term “Technical Personnel” means any person employed by or working under contract with the Contractor (other than a subcontractor whose responsibilities with respect to rights accruing to the Government in inventions arising under subcontracts are set forth in paragraphs (f), (g) and (h) of this clause), provided that such person, by reason of the nature of his duties in connection with the performance of this contract, would reasonably be expected to make inventions. (b) The Contractor agrees to and does hereby grant to the Government an irrevocable, nonexclusive, nontransferrable, and royalty-free license to practice, and cause to be practiced for the Government throughout the world, each Subject Invention in the manufacture, use, and disposition according to law, of any article or material, and in the use of any method; provided, however, that with respect to (i) any Subject Invention made by other than Technical Personnel, (ii) any Subject Invention conceived prior to any performance of this contract as set forth in paragraph (a) above but first actually reduced to practice in the course of any such performance, and (iii) the practice of any Subject Invention in foreign countries, the said license and other rights hereinafter provided shall be to the extent of the Contractor’s right to grant the same without incurring any obligation to pay royalties or other compensation to others solely on account of said grant. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall be deemed to grant any license under any invention other than a Subject Invention. Any license granted herein shall not convey any right to the Government to manufacture, have manufactured, or use any Subject Invention for the purpose of providing services or supplies to the general public in competition with the Contractor or the Contractor’s commercial licensees in the licensed fields. Having concluded that research work in the area of problem check was not called for by the 1954 contract, it is enough to dispose of defendant’s license argument by pointing out that defendant has failed to show that the McCoy invention was “ * * conceived or first actually reduced to practice * * * in the performance of the experimental, developmental or research work called for under this contract * *. Thus, defendant has not shown that the McCoy invention was a subject invention within the meaning of the contract. However, it is not necessary to rest this decision on that basis alone, for defendant’s contention fails for the equally important reason that it has done nothing more than broadly allude to various “connections” or “contacts” between McCoy and/or his invention on the one hand, and the 545-c contract on the other. As will be shown, defendant supplies no hard facts to support its suspicions. Defendant’s arguments concerning the relevancy of cases such as Mine Safety and Technitrol to the facts of this case are not convincing. As understood and simply stated, defendant’s position appears to be that it is entitled to a license under any invention conceived or reduced to practice by a Government contractor if the invention in any way relates to the subject matter of the parties’ contract. This court has made clear that the license rights clause in Government contracts will not be restricted to situations where every component of the invention has been discovered in the course of contract performance. The attitude of this court on that point is summarized in the following statement from Technitrol, supra, p. 619, 440 F.2d p. 1372: What Mine Safety teaches is that the issue of license vel non should be approached liberally by asking what the United States (acting for its taxpayers) can fairly be said to have purchased through its sponsorship of the contract project. The Federal Government has the right to use, royalty-free, those ideas, improvements, discoveries, and inventions — crystallized during performance of the federal contract — which have a “close and umbilical relationship” to the work and research funded by the United States. Having borne the expense of that effort, the public is entitled to enjoy the fruits without further charge. Accordingly, as we said in Mine Safety, “[i]t is fitting to read the license-grant of Section 17 * * * liberally, * * * and not to confine it severely within a narrow compass.” In arguing that it should receive a license under the invention disclosed and claimed by the McCoy patent, defendant points out: 1. That defendant was funding an ongoing project that had begun some 8 years prior to the conception of the McCoy problem check invention; 2. That the incorporation of the invention into Laboratory 3 under the 1954 contract and its succeeding contracts goes far to show that the invention had a “close and umbilical relationship” as a whole with the Government-financed Project Cyclone; and 3. That McCoy was a “technical personnel” as defined by the 545-c contract and as such was an inventor or co-inventor of three patents under various Project Cyclone contracts, including the 545-c contract. With regard to defendant’s initial point, it has already been shown that the 1954 contract did not contemplate nor authorize research by plaintiff into the problem check area. The fact that problem check was incorporated into Laboratory 3 under the 1954 contract is readily explained from the trial record. An April 29, 1955, letter from Mr. Bauer, plaintiff’s director of Project Cyclone, to the Chief of the Bureau of Aeronautics, indicates that the McCoy invention was brought to defendant’s attention by plaintiff and plaintiff volunteered to upgrade the Project Cyclone equipment at no cost to defendant. Specifically, the letter states in pertinent part: 3. Reeves has developed “Problem Check”, a new way of checking problem set-ups, which promises to be particularly useful when applied at a large prepatch installation. 4. Since Laboratory No. 3 will be modified to prepatch it will be advantageous to use this opportunity to incorporate “Problem Check” especially since the down-time will not be appreciably increased thereby. 5. The cost estimates in paragraph (2) will not be affected because of the addition of “Problem Check”. We will therefore incorporate “Problem Check” with the prepatch installation. It thus is clear that the incorporation of problem check into the Laboratory 3 computers was done at no cost to defendant. A number of fundamental facts which persuaded this court to conclude that a close and umbilical connection existed between the invention covered by the patent in suit and the contract in the Mine S