Share Email Print
cover

Proceedings Paper

Mask requirements for advanced lithography
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00

Paper Abstract

Within the n ext 10 years, sub-100 nm features will be required for state-of-the-industry devices. The tolerances for errors at 100 nm or less are substantially smaller than can be achieved today. A critical element of the error budget is the mask. For the 100 nm generation, the 4x mask image placement requirement is 20 nm with CD requirements as low as 9 nm. The challenge would be significant if the only improvement were to develop superior optical masks. There are multiple advanced technologies that are vying to be the successor to optical lithography. Each of these has a unique mask requirement. The leading contenders for the next generation are 1x x-ray, projection e-beam, ion beam, EUV and cell projection e-beam. The x-ray design is a proximity system that employs a 1x membrane mask. Projection e-beam uses a membrane mask with stabilizing struts. Ion beam lithography employs a stencil membrane mask with a carbon coating. EUV employs a 13 nm radiation source that requires a reflective mask. Cell projection e-beam has 25x or greater image masks that are stitched on the wafer. All the technologies indicated above. Once a total error budget for the mask is known, it is necessary to divide the total into the constituent parts. The major sources of distortion can be categorized into eight areas: mask blank processing, e- beam writing, pattern transfer, pellicle effects, mounting, thermal loadings, dynamic effects during exposure and radiation damage. The distortions introduced by each of these depend upon the type of mask; so, individual mask calculations must be made. The purpose of this paper is to review the modeling requirements of each of the categories and to highlight some results from each of the mask configurations.

Paper Details

Date Published: 5 June 1998
PDF: 10 pages
Proc. SPIE 3331, Emerging Lithographic Technologies II, (5 June 1998); doi: 10.1117/12.309576
Show Author Affiliations
Walter J. Trybula, SEMATECH (United States)
Roxann L. Engelstad, Univ. of Wisconsin/Madison (United States)


Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 3331:
Emerging Lithographic Technologies II
Yuli Vladimirsky, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top