"These distinctions reinforce the well-understood notion that claims of unrelated patents must be construed separately," the court wrote. "Because the asserted patents are not related, the ... patent requires a new claim construction inquiry."

So why if being a well-understood notion did Sabraw get it wrong? Being reversed I'm sure is not a feather in one's cap so what was the thinking here? Why push this off unto the Appeals court rather than rule against adding 108 to the CE himself? What reward was there vs the (certain) risk of being reversed?