the discrepancy, one may well be the free rein often exercised by Examiners in their use of the concept of "invention". Jurisdictions Canada The requirement for non-obviousness is codified under section 28.3 of the Patent Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. P-4). The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the test for non-obviousness laid out in Windsurfing International Inc. v. Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd. in Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi‑Synthelabo Canada Inc.: Identify the notional "person skilled in the art" and identify the relevant common general knowledge of that person; Identify the inventive concept of the claim in question or if that cannot readily be done, construe it; Identify what, if any, differences exist between the matter cited as forming part of the "state of the art" and the inventive concept of the claim or the claim as construed; Viewed without any knowledge of the alleged invention as claimed, do those differences constitute steps which would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art or do they require any degree of invention? Canadian courts also recognize the equivalents of the US objective indicia, i.e. Factors That Support Patentability of an Invention : Long felt but unsatisfied need for the invention while the needed implementing arts and elements had long been available; Appreciation that a problem existed and what the problem was were previously unseen by those skilled in the art; Substantial attempts by those skilled in the art to fill the need of (1) or the cope with difficulties arising from the failure to understand the problem of (2); Commercial success of the invention causally related to the invention itself rather than to factors such as advertising or attractive packaging; Replacement in the industry of the prior art devices by the patented invention; Prompt copying of the patentee's invention by competitors; Acquiescence by the industry to the patent's validity by honouring the patent through taking licenses or not infringing the patent, or both: The existence of prior art or knowledge teaching away from the technical direction taken by the patentee; Unexpectedness of the results of the invention to those skilled in the art; and Disbelief and incredulity on the part of those skilled in the art that the patentee's approach worked. European Patent Convention (EPC) Pursuant to Article 52(1) in conjunction with Article 56, first sentence, EPC, European patents shall be granted for inventions which, among other things, involve an inventive