But if the selected compound is novel and possesses a special property of an unexpected character, the invention is not obvious.

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: The disclosure branch requires that a single prior art reference must have been available to the public and must disclose the subject matter of the claimed invention.

The Supreme Court stated four non-exhaustive factors to be considered in determining whether there has been enablement: In this case, the Supreme Court concluded that the prior genus patent did not disclose the special advantages of the selection patent.

In determining whether the subject patent was obvious, Justice Rothstein, for the Court, endorsed the four step approach from Windsurfing International Inc. v. Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd.,[2] as restated in Pozzoli SPA v. BDMO SA:[3] In fields where advances are typically obtained by experimentation, an "obvious to try" test may be taken into consideration in the fourth step of the obviousness inquiry.