use to anticipate an invention, it must amount to “enabling disclosure”. The prior sale or use of a chemical product will constitute enabling disclosure to the public if its composition can be discovered through analysis of the product. The analysis must be able to be performed by a person skilled in the art in accordance with known analytical techniques available at the relevant time and without the exercise of inventive skill. When reverse engineering is capable of discovering the invention, it becomes available to the public if a product containing the invention is sold to any one member of the public who is free to use it as she or he pleases. It is not necessary to demonstrate that a member of the public actually analyzed the product sold. The amount of time and work involved in conducting the analysis is not determinative of whether a skilled person could discover the invention. The relevant consideration is only whether inventive skill is required. It is not necessary that the product that is the subject of the analysis be capable of exact reproduction. It is the subject matter of the patent claims that must be disclosed through the analysis. Novelty of the claimed invention is destroyed if there is a disclosure of an embodiment which falls within the claim. In Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi‑Synthelabo Canada Inc., it was claimed that Sanofi-Synthelabo’s patent was invalid because it covered only a selection of a prior, broader genus patent. One of the alleged grounds of invalidity was lack of novelty. The Supreme Court of Canada employed a two-part test for anticipation. In order for there to be a finding of anticipation, the prior art must satisfy both of the following branches: prior disclosure; and enablement. The test for disclosure is whether a person skilled in the art, reading the prior patent, would understand that it discloses the special advantages of the second invention. No trial and error is permitted. Once it is established that the prior disclosure indicates the special advantages of the second invention, some trial and error or experimentation is permitted to determine whether that disclosure also enables the development of the second invention. However, the skilled person must be able to perform or make the invention of the second patent without undue burden. The Supreme Court based their test on an earlier British test: “Patents are meant to teach people how to