In T 794/03 claim 1 as granted had been a substance claim for a plain-bearing composite material, preferably for manufacturing bearing bushes, whereas claim 1 according to the main request pending on appeal was for a plain-bearing bush made of the (in the meantime, limited) composite material. The board found that this amended claim amounted to a kind of "product-by-process" claim, which meant that, in order to determine the extent of protection it conferred, it had to establish what features the process lent the end product. It concluded that the scope of protection had indeed been extended.