Up to this point, the staff had not written or seen the form  for anything more than a conic Bézier segment. Searching for a single form, the group worked together, learning about knots, multiple knots and how nicely Bézier segments, especially the conics, could be imbedded into a B-spline curve with multiple knots. Looking back, it seemed so simple: It is easy to verify that the equation for P(t) is valid for the B-spline basis functions as well as for Bernstein basis functions. By the end of 1980 the staff knew we had a way to present all the required curve forms using a single representation, now known as the NURBS form. But this new representation could easily have died at this point. The staff were already 12 to 18 months down a development path. They had completed a large number of algorithms using the old curve forms. They now had to convince managers and the other technical groups, such as the database and graphics groups, that they should be allowed to start over using a single representation for all curves. The NURBS surface form did not present a problem since they had not yet developed any surface algorithms. The review of this new TIGER curve form was held on February 13, 1981. The review was successful and the staff were allowed to start over using the new curve form. It was at this time that the NURBS acronym was first used by the other side of the TIGER project, i.e., the TIGER software development groups of Boeing Computer Services. Management was very eager to promote the use of these new curve and surface forms. They had a limited understanding of the mathematics but they were very aware of the need to communicate geometric data between systems. Hence, Boeing very quickly prepared to propose NURBS to the August ’81 IGES meetings. There are two reasons why NURBS were so quickly accepted by IGES. The first was that IGES was in great need of a way to represent objects. Up to that point there were, for example, only two surface definitions in IGES and the B-spline form was restricted to cubic splines. The other, surprisingly important, reason for the rapid acceptance was that Boeing, not being a CAD system supplier, was not a threat to any of the major turnkey system vendors. Evidently, IGES easily bogs down when different vendors support their own slightly different representations for the same objects. At this first IGES meeting, it was discovered that the people with the best understanding of the presentation were the SDRC representatives.