a compound is not enabled simply by disclosing its theoretical formula, unless the compound has actually been prepared or the skilled worker would know, from the given directions or his ordinary knowledge, how to prepare it. Earlier patent application Priority is determined by order of applications, thus a prior application will bar a subsequent one. This "first to file" approach is used globally. Although previously holding to its first to invent system,the United States, switched on March 16, 2013 after the enactment of the America Invents Act (see "First to file and first to invent"). An earlier application that remains secret because it is abandoned or withdrawn before being published does not constitute disclosure. Non-obviousness A valid patent also requires a non-obvious invention. The invention must have some element of inventiveness. This concept originated in common law out of the notion that an invention must be inventive. It is now explicitly codified in section 28.3 of the Patent Act. Section 28.3 has a grace period of one year that allows the inventor, or a person who obtained knowledge directly or indirectly from the inventor, to disclose the invention without rendering the subsequent invention non-obvious. The non-obvious requirement is explained in Beloit Canada Ltd. v. Valmet Oy. Justice Hugessen contrasted the concepts of anticipation and non-obviousness: They are, of course, quite different; obviousness is an attack on a patent based on its lack of inventiveness. The attacker says, in effect, ‘Any fool could have done that’. Anticipation, or lack of novelty, on the other hand, in effect assumes that there has been an invention but asserts that it has been disclosed to the public prior to the application for the patent. It should be clarified that while Justice Hugessen says “any fool”, the proper standard in patents is a person skilled in the art. The man skilled in the art is the hypothetical person used as the benchmark for determining obviousness. The description of this man is: the technician skilled in the art but having no scintilla of inventiveness or imagination; a paragon of deduction and dexterity, wholly devoid of intuition; a triumph of the left hemisphere over the right. The question to be asked is whether this mythical creature (the man in the Clapham omnibus of patent law) would, in the light of the state of the art and of common general knowledge as at the claimed date of invention,