detailed to be anticipatory. The disclosure must also be self-contained; a combination of prior art is not adequate for showing anticipation. In Reeves Brothers Inc. v. Toronto Quilting & Embroidery Ltd., Justice Gibson the Federal Court enunciated an eight-pronged test for determining whether prior art is anticipatory of the subject-matter of a patent. The prior art must: give an exact prior description; give directions which will inevitably result in something within the claims; give clear and unmistakable directions; give information which for the purpose of practical utility is equal to that given by the subject patent; convey information so that a person grappling with the same problem must be able to say "that gives me what I wish"; give information to a person of ordinary knowledge so that he must at once perceive the invention; in the absence of explicit directions, teach an "inevitable result" which "can only be proved by experiments"; and satisfy all these tests in a single document without making a mosaic. The final statement is credited with creating a misinterpretation that the tests are cumulative. However, the tests are not cumulative. The Court of Appeal has commented that "Gibson J. had only enumerated various formulations for the test of anticipation retained in earlier decisions and his conclusion really is that there could be no finding of anticipation unless one met any, rather that each of these eight 'tests'. In Beloit Canada Ltd. et al v. Valmet Oy, one of the leading cases on anticipation by publication, the Federal Court of Appeal stated: One must, in effect, be able to look at a prior, single publication and find in it all the information which, for practical purposes, is needed to produce the claimed invention without the exercise of any inventive skill. The prior publication must contain so clear a direction that a skilled person reading and following it would in every case and without possibility of error be led to the claimed invention. In Baker Petrolite Corp. v. Canwell Enviro-Industries Ltd., the Federal Court of Appeal listed the following eight principles for anticipation by prior use or sale, which supplement the principles from Beloit Canada Ltd. et al v. Valmet Oy: Sale to the public or use by the public alone is insufficient to prove anticipation. Disclosure of the invention is required to constitute anticipation under section 28.2(1)(a) of the Patent Act. For a prior sale or