The Patents Act 1990 establishes the basis of the patent system in Australia. Like other patent systems around the world, the granting of a patent depends on a purported invention satisfying, among others, the criteria of novelty and non-obviousness. It is commonly believed that the threshold for granting a patent is lower than that of Australia. main commercial partners. In fact, according to the legal interpretation of the rules, the body responsible for the Australian patent system, IPAustralia, maintains a lower threshold of novelty and inventiveness than the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the European Patent Office (EPO). )[1]. However, a study by Jensen et al.[2] Comparing the grant rates of different patent offices shows that the patentability threshold in Australia is higher than that of the USPTO. However, the study by Jensen et al.[3] takes into account all elements of patentability, together with common law and patent office protocols. Working in this industry, I notice that an Australian application is usually granted more quickly than competing applications in different jurisdictions. It is my opinion, based on the documents cited in the indictment, that IPAustralia's examining division is not that thorough in examining relevant documents. This may be due to a lack of resources that allow examiners to fully understand the technology, which in turn results in poorly prosecuted enforcement. On the other hand, examiners could be guided by the lower threshold of novelty and inventiveness depending on the interpretation of the legislation[4]. There are several problems with this lower threshold of novelty and inventiveness imposed by the legislation. Unnecessarily broad patents... middle of the paper... if the cited documents are reasonable, the applicant must then demonstrate what is new or what "unexpected results" arise from the asserted claim, the characteristics of which, I think should be patentable. It is undeniable that the inventive threshold in the Australian patent system needs to be raised, so perhaps the formulation "obvious to prove" is necessary as it encompasses the requirement that overly simplistic combinations of elements are not patentable. However, it is my view that the Australian Patent Office should adopt a clearly defined obviousness test. Australia, which buys technology mainly from overseas, needs the examination threshold to be comparable to other jurisdictions. A stronger patent system here will give overseas investors the confidence to invest in Australia as they are guaranteed intellectual property protection for their investments.