prior patents, giving a broad description of what includes prior disclosure; so long as the subject-matter was disclosed "in such manner that the subject-matter became available to the public", the subject-matter is barred from being patented. This may include prior patents, publications or the invention itself being put on display. Disclosures in a private document, such as an internal memo that is not available to the public, do not count. There is an eight-pronged test to determine whether anticipation occurs in Canada. 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. Non-obviousness The test for non-obviousness (also sometimes referred to as "inventive ingenuity" or "inventive step") is whether an "unimaginative skilled technician, in light of their general knowledge and the literature and information on the subject available to them on (the date that the application is filed in Canada), would have been led directly and without difficulty to [the] invention." The requirement for non-obviousness is codified under s. 28.3 of the Patent Act. In Apotex Inc. v. Sanofi‑Synthelabo Canada Inc., the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the test for non-obviousness laid out in the 1985 English case of Windsurfing International Inc. v. Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd.: Identify the notional "person skilled in the art" and 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