The example is an invention depending on precise definitions of a series of antecedent phrases that will be repeated numerous times in a series of following claim parts, some of the phrases being partly similar therefore need to be carefully distinguished. Here is an attempt at constructing something that is parallel to my invention’s claim characteristics:
Claim construction 1
A method for [doing something useful with a computing device having a graphical user interface] comprising:
upon detecting [something], displaying a message input interface [having these specific characteristics];
displaying one or more of special icons of type 1 [that represent a function A];
accepting user input to select one or more of the special icons of type 1;
displaying one or more of special icons of type 2 [that represent a function B];
accepting user input to select one or more of the special icons of type 2;
etc. (several more statements of this sort).
–– Compared TO to this kind of construction, for any benefit or advantage:
Claim construction 2
A method for [doing something useful with a computing device having a graphical user interface] comprising a message input interface, special icons of type 1, and special icons of type 2, wherein
upon detecting [something], displaying the message input interface [having these specific characteristics];
displaying one or more of the special icons of type 1 [that represent a function A];
accepting user input to select one or more of the special icons of type 1;
displaying one or more of the special icons of type 2 [that represent a function B];
accepting user input to select one or more of the special icons of type 2 ;
etc. (several more statements of this sort).
Summarizing the question: Is there any reason for stating those antecedent phrases in what I believe is called the Preamble of the independent claim? In my actual case, there would be exactly 10 of them.