MEEF measurement and model verification for 0.3-k1 lithography

Parker, Colin R.; Reilly, Michael T.

doi:10.1117/12.395749

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…7,8 Values at 0.7 NA, for this range of pitches, is approximately 1.9 to 1.2 for the dense to isolated pitch. Estimates of the purely resist bias are given by equation 2.…”

Section: Mef Adjusted Biasmentioning

confidence: 98%

Maximizing common process latitude by integrated process development for 130-nm lithography

Reilly¹,

Parker²,

Fischer³

et al. 2002

SPIE Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maximized inherent common process latitude of 130 nm line/space features through pitch is demonstrated in this work. It is shown that the principle method for doing so is by reducing the through pitch, or proximity, bias. The effects that formulation, illumination optics and mask error have on proximity bias are studied. Formulations exhibit a wide range of bias that does not necessarily depend upon activation energy or process temperatures. Optical settings for inner and outer sigma for both annular and quadrupole illumination, likewise, have a demonstrable effect on the proximity bias. Larger, tighter annuli or poles produce larger bias, while lower settings incur a loss of resolution. Either effect limits the common latitude so a balance is struck between them. Additionally, while the effect of outer sigma is obvious in the data, the inner sigma effect is not observed until data are corrected for mask error and the mask error factor. The proximity bias ranges between approximately 10 and 80 nm, depending upon the combination of conditions. Sub-resolution assist features (scattering bars) are specifically excluded from use in this experiment.

show abstract

“…7,8 Values at 0.7 NA, for this range of pitches, is approximately 1.9 to 1.2 for the dense to isolated pitch. Estimates of the purely resist bias are given by equation 2.…”

Section: Mef Adjusted Biasmentioning

confidence: 98%

Maximizing common process latitude by integrated process development for 130-nm lithography

Reilly¹,

Parker²,

Fischer³

et al. 2002

SPIE Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…line, space, or contact hole, causes different MEEF values for an otherwise fixed set of optical and process test conditions. The benefit of using positive line bias for reducing MEEF for lines and spaces has been previously shown 1 . Modeling the MEEF for contacts 2 suggest that negative bias, instead, is better for contacts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Verification of the effect of mask bias on the mask error enhancement factor of contact holes

Reilly¹,

Robertson²,

Parker³

et al. 2002

21st Annual BACUS Symposium on Photomask Technology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mask error enhancement factor for contact holes is experimentally determined for 180 nm features under a variety of exposure conditions. Since its magnitude depends, in part, upon the slope of the aerial image, the value is calculated as a function of binary and phase shift masks, mask bias, and conventional and quadrupole illumination. The primary purpose is to compare experimental results to a simulation study and determine which simulation trends are accurately predicted. The results show that isolated contacts have lower MEEF than dense contacts but that dense contacts do not necessarily have the largest error factor. The magnitude of MEEF and the optimal bias that minimizes it are show to be accurately predicted.

show abstract