On some levels, it was already present to a degree the never before formed substance was not, because the substance was impossible until the process existed. A process may require a previously non-existent substance (as it seems this one did,) but once that substance exists the potential of applying it in the form of the process requires only discovery, not invention. Surely the product is at least as much an invention as the production, or the production at least as much a discovery as the product. Does not the antecedent have (literal) precedence over the succedent?