Share Email Print
cover

Proceedings Paper

Resolution and components of critical dimension variation in x-ray lithography
Author(s): Kathleen Early; David Trindade; Quinn J. Leonard; Franco Cerrina; Klaus Simon; Mark A. McCord; Daniel J. DeMay
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00

Paper Abstract

We report on an IC lithographic resolution study in which APEX-E resist on polysilicon coated wafers was exposed to synchrotron x radiation through a high-resolution mask that contained Au-electroplated features ranging in size from 0.5 down to 0.15-micrometers . Exposures were made at mask-to-substrate gaps ranging from 20 to 35 micrometers and at doses from 100 to 134 mJ/cm2. We probed the wafers with an SEM, both before and after etch, and electrically. From the electrical linewidth probing, we found that for isolated lines and 1:2 L:S patterns the feature widths were linear down to 0.18-micrometers . For the 1:1 and 2:1 L:S arrays, the widths were linear down to 0.25-micrometers . Dense and isolated lines down to 0.25-micrometers exhibited +/- 15% dose latitude over a 10-micrometers gap range. Contact holes were examined only by SEM. The smallest size that printed was nominally 0.225 micrometers , but was measured to be 0.20-micrometers after etch. Critical dimension uniformity, calculated with each feature type allowed its own mean value, was approximately equals 40 nm (3(sigma) ), including intrafield and across wafer variation. The mask CD uniformity was approximately equals 30 nm (mean + 3(sigma) ). The wafer-to-wafer CD variation was found to be 6 nm (3(sigma) ) and the electrical test-to-test CD variation was 3 nm (3(sigma) ). We use regression analysis to separate the component of CD variation that is assignable to intrafield form that assignable to interfield. The regression analysis to separate the component of CD variation that is assignable to intrafield from that assignable to interfield. The regression analysis indicates that these components of CD variation are systematic rather than random. The main contributor to the interfield component may be polysilicon etch. The intrafield error is believed to be caused predominantly by beamline nonuniformity and not by errors on the 1x mask.

Paper Details

Date Published: 19 May 1995
PDF: 13 pages
Proc. SPIE 2437, Electron-Beam, X-Ray, EUV, and Ion-Beam Submicrometer Lithographies for Manufacturing V, (19 May 1995); doi: 10.1117/12.209183
Show Author Affiliations
Kathleen Early, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (United States)
David Trindade, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (United States)
Quinn J. Leonard, Univ. of Wisconsin/Madison (United States)
Franco Cerrina, Univ. of Wisconsin/Madison (United States)
Klaus Simon, Suss America Lithography, Inc. (Germany)
Mark A. McCord, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Ctr. (United States)
Daniel J. DeMay, Loral Federal Systems Co. (United States)


Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 2437:
Electron-Beam, X-Ray, EUV, and Ion-Beam Submicrometer Lithographies for Manufacturing V
John M. Warlaumont, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top