Breaking News
News & Analysis

EUV Results Bogus, Says Analyst

IBM responds to criticism of test
8/1/2014 03:00 PM EDT
29 comments
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
elctrnx_lyf
User Rank
Manager
Re: Resist-less is not realistic
elctrnx_lyf   8/6/2014 6:26:58 AM
NO RATINGS
The companies in semiconductor industry are trying to push the boundaries of the nature to get the latest technologies for high end IC manufactuirng. IBM definitely wants to keep their place without a question.

goafrit
User Rank
Manager
Re: Kudos to the analyst
goafrit   8/6/2014 5:27:48 AM
NO RATINGS
>> Congratulations to the analyst for a substantive, technical, "truth to power" analysis.  It may be the first I've ever seen

Very good work indeed. The validation is actually on the comments and interests the work has generated. Great work by EETimes to make this always-hard insight available.

resistion
User Rank
CEO
Re: Resist-less is not realistic
resistion   8/5/2014 2:47:50 PM
NO RATINGS
Some cooling time would have to be included and we also need to consider the optics, which would heat up even more. There is no ambient.

TanjB
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Resist-less is not realistic
TanjB   8/5/2014 11:49:36 AM
NO RATINGS
That is only about 3 joules per wafer, assuming 9illuminated features are 25% of the surface area.  On a 100 micron wafer the wafer is going to expand about 1 part per million.  However, the chuck may be 100 times more massive, made of a low expansion material, and probably on a temperature controlled mount.  It seems like this aspect could be routinely controlled?  The wafer would need to be at a repeatable, predictable temperature within 0.02 C accuracy to hold expansion across a 2cm field to 1nm - any design for high accuracy lithography, regardless of energy source, must aim for that level of control.

resistion
User Rank
CEO
Re: Resist-less is not realistic
resistion   8/4/2014 4:25:09 PM
NO RATINGS
After enough EUV-heated wafers (heating from absorption), the wafer chuck being warmer expands some ppm, which matters over 300 mm. In fact, applies even without resist, but resist patterning involves overlay.

docdivakar
User Rank
Manager
SemiWiki Link on This Topic
docdivakar   8/4/2014 3:18:29 PM
NO RATINGS
EE Times readers may be interested in this posting on SemiWiki by Mr. Robert Maire:

http://www.semiwiki.com/forum/f2/asml-ibm-grossly-misleading-about-euv-progress-4506.html

MP Divakar

milesgehm
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Resist-less is not realistic
milesgehm   8/4/2014 1:36:02 PM
NO RATINGS
1 saves
I have never worked anywhere close to this node.  I can kind of imagine why cleaning might be needed, but stopping to cool if resist is used sounds improbable.  Why would that be the case?

resistion
User Rank
CEO
Re: Follow up
resistion   8/3/2014 8:30:20 PM
NO RATINGS
@TanjB, the exposure latitude is for 10%CD off target at best focus (by most references). Of course there is also a focus window, which normally accounts for another 10%. When not at best focus, the exposure latitude can go down significantly; some of the graphs already show that. Some features like lines or arrays can have enhanced exposure latitude with some type of off-axis illumination, but for random metal or poly layouts, there is always going to be some trouble spot with much reduced exposure latitude or depth of focus.

You're right about the trade-off of multiple steps with overlay, so there has been some move toward more self-aligned patterning, but this actually restricts the layout quite a bit.

So there are still many patterning options being studied, but I think a greater concern is the demand for smaller geometries, in terms of how many companies will actually design/manufacture sub-20 nm.

DrQuine
User Rank
CEO
Kudos to the analyst
DrQuine   8/3/2014 6:21:21 PM
NO RATINGS
Congratulations to the analyst for a substantive, technical, "truth to power" analysis.  It may be the first I've ever seen. Usually the analysts just take the buzz on the street and wrap it around the corporate press release. As far as IBM's motivation for "results were deliberately misleading", I'll be interested to see what unfolds. Was it negligence or misdirection because they don't want competitors replicating their approach and builkding upon their early work. I can't see why IBM would have errors in their data when they understand better than anyone else what they're doing. 

TanjB
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Follow up
TanjB   8/3/2014 3:31:08 PM
NO RATINGS
Thanks for the reference!  Not sure if slide 37 is the right one?  Perhaps you meant 32/33?  And compare to slide 43 where 40 vs. 20 mJ demonstrate that there is a fairly wide latitude in exposure.  Admittedly, that assumes they crank up the power, which reduces thruput.

You are right this has not been a problem with current UV where there are about 15x more photons.  However, EUV should be able to expose in one step what EUV needs 2 or 4 overlayed steps to achieve, so in a sense the shot noise is going to eat into margins donated by not having the errors of multiple steps.

For sure, you are right this kind of problem is new and will get worse.  It works counter to using more sensitive resists, it works counter to higher thruput, and it works counter to finer resolutions.

Page 1 / 3   >   >>
Most Recent Comments
Wnderer
 
David Ashton
 
mikehibbett
 
dwhess
 
David Ashton
 
LarryM99
 
David Ashton
 
mikehibbett
 
goafrit
Radio
NEXT UPCOMING BROADCAST
How to Cope with a Burpy Comet
October 17, 2pm EDT Friday
EE Times Editorial Director Karen Field interviews Andrea Accomazzo, Flight Director for the Rosetta Spacecraft.
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
"All the King's horses and all the KIng's men gave up on Humpty, so they handed the problem off to Engineering."
5 comments
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed