Share Email Print

Proceedings Paper

E-beam GIDC resolution enhancement technology in practical applications
Author(s): S. Martens; J. Butschke; R. Galler; M. Krüger; H. Sailer; M. Sülzle
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00

Paper Abstract

For nearly all relevant applications of e-beam lithography the resolution and pattern quality requirements are approaching or exceeding the limits of the available process. On one hand, for shrinking feature dimensions, the e-beam proximity effect and process effects such as photo acid diffusion limit the pattern contrast and process window. On the other hand, e-beam process related parasitic effects such as shot noise, fogging, developer loading, heating, charging, and inhomogeneous bake introduce some significant errors. Even though e-beam tool and process tool suppliers continue to implement new or improve current strategies to avoid or correct these effects, the amount of residual errors requires some reasonable e-beam process window, in particular for high end applications. For some patterns the undersize-overdose approach (SIZE) improves the pattern fidelity and process window. However, for patterns with high fill factors this approach increases the overall deposited electron dose, which due to the increased backscattering diminishes or even eliminates the advantages. The geometrically induced dose correction (GIDC) method overcomes this issue by combining the SIZE concept with a short range framing technique, which reduces the deposited dose in large filled pattern areas. This paper provides a comparison of the standard, SIZE, and GIDC correction approaches for 1D test patterns as well as production patterns. For a broad comparison, patterns were printed onto negative and positive chemically amplified resists and on wafer and mask substrates using a Vistec SB352HR variable shape e-beam writer. Both wafers were also etched. The outcome of the study is that the SIZE and GIDC approaches often outperform the standard proximity effect correction. For dense patterns, GIDC still provides a better pattern quality and process window, while the SIZE approach suffers from the increased overall deposited electron dose and clearly falls behind GIDC in terms of process window. Further it was shown that the lowering of the dose in inner areas due to GIDC does not impact the etch resistance.

Paper Details

Date Published: 9 September 2013
PDF: 8 pages
Proc. SPIE 8880, Photomask Technology 2013, 88802H (9 September 2013); doi: 10.1117/12.2030822
Show Author Affiliations
S. Martens, Institut für Mikroelektronik Stuttgart (Germany)
J. Butschke, Institut für Mikroelektronik Stuttgart (Germany)
R. Galler, EQUIcon Software GmbH Jena (Germany)
M. Krüger, EQUIcon Software GmbH Jena (Germany)
H. Sailer, Institut für Mikroelektronik Stuttgart (Germany)
M. Sülzle, EQUIcon Software GmbH Jena (Germany)

Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 8880:
Photomask Technology 2013
Thomas B. Faure; Paul W. Ackmann, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top