Share Email Print

Proceedings Paper

When is bilayer thin-film imaging suitable: comparison with single-layer resists
Author(s): Scott Halle; Alan C. Thomas; Michael Armacost; Timothy J. Dalton; Xiaochun Chen; Scott J. Bukofsky; Oliver Genz; Zhijian G. Lu; Shahid A. Butt; Zheng Chen; Richard A. Ferguson; Eric Coker; Robert K. Leidy; Qinghuang Lin; Arpan P. Mahorowala; Katherina Babich; Karen E. Petrillo; Marie Angelopoulos; Mark Ignatowicz; Bang Bui
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00
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

Silicon-containing bilayer thin-film imaging resists versus single layer resists for a variety of different mask types, from both a focus-expose window, etch selectivity, and process integration perspective are examined. Comparable lithographic performance is found for 248 nm single layer and bilayer resists for several mask levels including: a 135 nm dense contact/deep trench mask level, a 150 and 125 nm equal line space mask printed over trench topography, and dual damascene mask levels with both vias and line levels. The bilayer scheme is shown to significantly relax the dielectric to resist etch selectivity constraint for the case of a dense contact or trench hardmask level, where high aspect ratio dielectric features are required. Only a bilayer resist scheme in combination with a transfer etch process enables the line/space pattern transfer from the imaging layer to the bottom of a trench with a combined aspect ratio > 10. When the single layer resist depth of focus window is limited by both the topography and variations in the underlying dielectric stack thickness, as is the case for the dual damascene via and line levels, bilayer resist is shown to be a practical alternative.

Paper Details

Date Published: 14 September 2001
PDF: 12 pages
Proc. SPIE 4346, Optical Microlithography XIV, (14 September 2001); doi: 10.1117/12.435797
Show Author Affiliations
Scott Halle, IBM Microelectronics Div. (United States)
Alan C. Thomas, IBM Microelectronics Div. (United States)
Michael Armacost, IBM Microelectronics Div. (United States)
Timothy J. Dalton, IBM Microelectronics Div. (United States)
Xiaochun Chen, Infineon Technologies Corp. (United States)
Scott J. Bukofsky, IBM Microelectronics Div. (United States)
Oliver Genz, Infineon Technologies Corp. (United States)
Zhijian G. Lu, Infineon Technologies Corp. (United States)
Shahid A. Butt, Infineon Technologies Corp. (United States)
Zheng Chen, IBM Microelectronics Div. (United States)
Richard A. Ferguson, IBM Microelectronics Div. (United States)
Eric Coker, IBM Microelectronics Div. (United States)
Robert K. Leidy, IBM Microelectronics Div. (United States)
Qinghuang Lin, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Ctr. (United States)
Arpan P. Mahorowala, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Ctr. (United States)
Katherina Babich, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Ctr. (United States)
Karen E. Petrillo, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Ctr. (United States)
Marie Angelopoulos, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Ctr. (United States)
Mark Ignatowicz, JSR Microelectronics, Inc. (United States)
Bang Bui, JSR Microelectronics, Inc. (United States)

Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 4346:
Optical Microlithography XIV
Christopher J. Progler, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top