Sir, I have a simple rule of thumb. Whatever is new to the world i call it invention and whatever is new to the market i call it innovation.  Today even minor cosmetic changes made to products people, call it innovation. Smoking tobacco in a pipe could be called invention. But the same tobacco rolled in a paper is cigarettes which is innovation. But i believe both have different patents. Thanks and regards, Michael.

The first patent on airplane by the Wright Brothers was a leap frog innovation. That patent broke new ground for other patents related to airplane to enter. An ensuing patent which improved the technology introduced by the first airplane patent would be called incremental innovation, wherein the ensuing patent simple polished and modified the pioneering technology, within the scope exposed by the first patent.

Dear Prof. Feng, thanks for your time and thoughtful views with considered example... Would love to hear your views and other experts as it flows...  

Pl. consider this example,

Coffee Filters (Maker) works on the principle of pouring the hot water thro appropriate mechanism, allowing percolation through filters, deliver the brew... There are good number of patents...

Instead of hot water coming down thro coffee powder and delivering the brew, the process of reversing the mechanism, steam is sent upwards through coffee powder and brew is obtained in upper tank of filter through condensation... There are patents here too...

Can we say the second example is incremental Innovation?

@Ramanan,

First, I am a rising 3L law student, not a professor.

Second, your second example may be considered as a substantially different invention from the first because the second example does not involve the use of a filter paper while the first does. In addition, in the first example, the color and flavor in the first example come from the chemicals dissolved in liquid water while the color and flavor in the second example come from chemicals which can technically "boil" at around 100 degree Celsius into vapor/steam, then condense with water drops (if I understand your description correctly and no filter paper is involved). The theories relied upon in the two examples to make the coffee seem to be different. The second example may be viewed as a pretty innovative patent, closer to a leap frog patent. In this case, simply heating the coffee ground to make those chemicals into vapor, then condense them, and mix with hot water would be another way to make coffee.

However, if in the second example, 1) the hot steam simply condenses into water drops, which drop into the coffee powder; 2) the condensed hot water dissolve the chemicals responsible for the color and flavor of the coffee; and 3) the hot solution thus made filtered through a filter paper; then the second example is very similar to the first example to make coffee except for the way to deliver the hot water and/or the temperature of the hot water. Accordingly, this second patent is likely an incremental patent.

Following the Resource-Based Theory, the issue of Patent is not relevant to achieve a sustained compettiive advantage.

@Feng - Thank you... There are new points that came from your answers, how a legal guy views the IP, which is quite different from that of Technologists... This is the one of the reason, the guy who delivered the invention should work with the lawyer and flow his mind... Many patents are coming for challenges / work-around are developed due to the absence of this.

@Maurizio - Thank you. Your answer is useful, resourceful and valid. But from practical point of view, the entire process of brew generation is reversed, It uses the hot water (no chemical), uses filter paper (no coated) etc... the process of brew generation is different... one is ''percolation' of water through coffee powder and other is 'condensation' of steam after passing through coffee powder... This is the basis on which the patent is issued for the idea. Love to hear your views.

Dear Ramanan, I suggest you to consider even more closely the issue of inimitability and non-sobstituability of your Patent. Let me know.

Innovation is quite varied – it can be technology, product, or organizational innovation – it depends upon what you are looking at.  From a high-tech sector life-cycle viewpoint, one can look at the general development of technology where the young start-up firm has either a new or even a disruptive (your “leap-frog”) technology that is an advance on the current “state-of-the-art”. (Think USB versus floppy disk media storage – and potentially cloud storage versus USB devices, etc. – though this tends to be more “Punctuated Equilibria” (Gould and Eldridge) in a way...).   The young company can generally innovate in an environment of discovery in many ways – the technology could have many applications and/or directions it can be taken into commercialize it  – all with a low formal corporate structure which allows for maximum flexibility and agility to react to market or customer shifts.  Where the focus starts to narrow is in the growth stage (after Moore’s crossing the chasm and tornado) as one or few products or technologies are then developed.  Once growth starts then the formalization of corporate structure and management also takes place where now the firm changes from outward looking to satisfy customer to looking more internally at profitability and cost or market leadership in the Main Street (Moore).  As the firm becomes mature it also tends (generally) to become incremental in its innovation.    

Mintzberg’s adhocracies can be considered akin to the young start-up where creative people full of ideas and expertise are all put together and sometimes incredible innovation results from a supportive and inquisitive corporate culture.  As the firm matures it can become either a machine bureaucracy or moves to a Lean/J-Form organization.  The J-form can have widespread innovation, but usually incremental and inwardly facing to operations and costs (continuous improvement) and slow to react (Lam 2004) versus the product or technology (outward) facing firms.  There are always exceptions, but they are few generally.

So, does innovation have to result in a patent?  If it is disruptive technology then usually; if it’s process or product innovation, then maybe (depending upon the innovation).  If it’s organizational innovation then it’s likely not a subject for a patent.  Another interesting point – Tesla just removed their patents for their electric car technology – apparently in a move to bring disruptive technology to the masses – and build their market share as perhaps the company best positioned to take advantage of the electric car market revolution once more and more manufacturers start using the Tesla technology to produce more and more electric cars...

@Brian - Dear Brian thank you for your time and a detailed answer. It is useful and informative. Kind Regards, LR

Sir, I have a simple rule of thumb. Whatever is new to the world i call it invention and whatever is new to the market i call it innovation.  Today even minor cosmetic changes made to products people, call it innovation. Smoking tobacco in a pipe could be called invention. But the same tobacco rolled in a paper is cigarettes which is innovation. But i believe both have different patents. Thanks and regards, Michael.

sorry i missed out one point. Now this cigarette is coming with filter, low some paper, etc.Which could be called incremental innovation. Pipe to cigarettes could be leap frog..

It is a question of semantics. I agree with @Michael David Premkumar. Every thing "New" is invention at a particular moment.

Innovation distinguishes itself from invention by the diffusion of the technology. An invention does not necessarily may mean that it is an invention. To fall into the realm of invention it needs what Brian Arthur describes as "A change in a base principle"[1]. This particular attribute is what leads to Novelty and non obviousness that is required by patents and can be considered a 'leap frog' idea. An incremental modification does not fit within the parameters of a change in base principles and can be described as a partial modification of the underlying functioning and aspects of the widget. As such both an invention and an incremental modification can fall under innovation.Hope this helps

[1] The structure of invention. Research Policy, Vol. 36 (January 2007), pp. 274-287 by W. B. Arthur

Dear Arturo, Very useful answer... Thanks a bunch... It also adds a clarity on Invention and Innovation... Thanks again for your time. Kindest Regards, Ramanan

Dear Michael

Thanks for your time and answer... If we apply the patentability, 'Obviousness' comes into the play... if the original patent covered any form of drawing the smoke through the pipe wood / paper which can make themself (paper gets destroyed in Cigar) destroyed in the process of smoke generation or burning tobacco or they do not get themselves destroyed as broader area, then I am doubtful of patenting rights for both seperately... 

Good example for discussions... Thank you... Kindest Regards

Ramanan