Utility Patent Claim Structure (or how patent claims are worded)

Eric

I`m hoping a bright I.P. guy here can clarify something for me as we have to make a decision on this very soon. I`ve already emailed my attorney for clarification, but at $###.##!/hr ...I`d really like to be prepared.
We are about to accept the structure of a utility patent with 5 claims.
At first glance they look solid, but then I noticed that the structure of the claims might have a problem.
Without revealing specifics, one claim might read something like this. I hope to make sense of it here.
An [invention] for doing something whereby the thingy1 is mounted to a thingy2 that is fixed to a place and whereby the thingy2 has first and second ends, etc. and so forth comprising;
a means for doing this one thing;
a means for doing this other thing; AND
a means for doing this other thing connected to the means for the first thing.

---

The question is this. Is the claim completely dependent on ALL of these elements compiled together?
Seeing the word "comprising" tells me that there are multiple attributes to the claim.
Attribute 1; attribute 2; AND attribute 3
I want to know that if somebody builds something with attribute 1 and attribute 2 but finds a way around attribute 3,  have they entirely overcome the claim?
Furthermore, does it matter that attribute 3 is somewhat insignificant compared to attributes 1 and 2 and could be done in a vast number of ways.
 
Thanks

Eric

I already received my answer.  My intuition was correct.
All elements of a claim must be present before infringement occurs.

tiagul

It is worth to hire a claim specialist who will work for you in getting the claim before violation occurs as personal Independent Loss Assessors have all kind of legal knowledge that how will get proper money as they earlier worked in the insurance companies.