Opinion ID: 4471851
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: at least one outlet probe receptacle de-

Text: fined in the body and extending from the bottom surface of the body and into the brew chamber such that the at least one outlet probe receptacle is config- ured to receive an outlet probe of the single serve beverage brewer when the body is received within the brewing hol- ster, wherein the at least one outlet probe receptacle is fluidly isolated from the brew chamber to prevent the outlet probe from penetrating the brew cham- ber, thereby preventing fluid from exit- ing the brew chamber through the outlet probe; 14 EKO BRANDS, LLC v. ADRIAN RIVERA MAYNEZ ENTERS. Because it sold only the brewing device and not the beverage brewer itself, ARM asserts that it did not infringe. But claim 8 on its face does not require a beverage brewer, even if the preamble is limiting. To the extent that claim 8 mentions a beverage brewer, it is only as a “reference point” to define the purpose and structure of the brewing device. See C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., 157 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 1998). And there is nothing in the prosecution history suggesting that the beverage brewer itself is part of the claim. The district court correctly construed that claim 8 on its face does not require a beverage brewer.