Examples I have seen seem to follow the "at least one X" language with a first X, second X type language. However, My X is an indicium delineating an angle, such as 45° or 15°, with a special stated relationship to the device. I have tried to portray that "at least one X" can be anywhere on a larger particular part of the device in the independent claim. Then in the dependent claim, at least one X in one area within the larger area of the device and/or at least one X in another area on the device and/or at least one X in still another area of the device, then (within any of the locations), one or more facing toward the front of the device and/or one or more Xs facing toward the back of the device, and then (within any of the locations and either way they or it are facing) at least one X with this specific value, and/or at least one X with another specific value. So far, the at least one indicium, followed by a first, second, third indicium, makes it look like a long list of confusion and more limiting than I like or leaving out more possibilities than I like. If say at least one X in the independent claim can I then say further comprising a plurality of X in following dependent claims? Nothing I have found sounds right. Probably not answerable, alas.