Share Email Print

Journal of Micro/Nanolithography, MEMS, and MOEMS

Comparisons of 9% versus 6% transmission attenuated phase shift mask for the 65 nm device node
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $20.00 $25.00
cover GOOD NEWS! Your organization subscribes to the SPIE Digital Library. You may be able to download this paper for free. Check Access

Paper Abstract

The minimum gate pitch for the 65 nm device node will push 193 nm lithography toward k1~0.35 with numerical aperture (NA)=0.85. Previous work has analyzed the challenges expected for this generation. However, in the simplest terms, optical lithography for the 65 nm node will be difficult. Lithographers are, therefore, looking into high-transmission attenuated phase shift masks (high-T attPSMs), where T>14%, to improve process margins. The benefits of a high-T attPSM are substantial, but drawbacks like difficulty in inspection, defect free blank manufacture, and sidelobe printing may make the use of such masks impractical. One possible solution to this problem is to employ medium transmission (med-T) attPSM, such as T = 9%, to image critical levels of the 65 nm node with 193 nm lithography. Earlier work has shown that the problems high-T attPSMs face are manageable for med-T attPSM. Sidelobe printing in particular will be treated in this work with simulation and experiment. A primary goal of this effort is to determine if the lithographic benefit of moving from industry-standard 6% attPSM to 9% attPSM is worth the risks associated with such a transition. This goal will be met through a direct comparison of experimental 0.75 NA 193 nm wavelength results for 6% versus 9% attPSM on the gate, contact/via, and metal layers at 65 nm generation target dimensions with leading edge resists.

Paper Details

Date Published: 1 April 2004
PDF: 8 pages
J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS 3(2) doi: 10.1117/1.1669524
Published in: Journal of Micro/Nanolithography, MEMS, and MOEMS Volume 3, Issue 2
Show Author Affiliations
Patrick K. Montgomery, Motorola, Inc. (United States)
Lloyd C. Litt, Motorola, Inc. (United States)
Willard E. Conley, Motorola, Inc. (United States)
Kevin D. Lucas, Motorola, Inc. (France)
Johannes van Wingerden, Philips Research Labs. (Belgium)
Geert Vandenberghe, IMEC (Belgium)
Vincent Wiaux, Interuniversity MicroElectronics Ctr. (Belgium)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top