21 March 2006 Process window OPC verification: dry versus immersion lithography for the 65nm node
Author Affiliations +
Abstract
Ensuring robust patterning after OPC is becoming more and more difficult due to the continuous reduction of layout dimensions and diminishing process windows associated with each successive lithographic generation. Lithographers must guarantee high imaging fidelity throughout the entire range of normal process variations. To verify the printability of a design across process window, compact optical models similar to those used for standard OPC are used. These models are calibrated from experimental data measured at the limits of the process window. They are then applied to the design to predict potential printing failures. This approach has been widely used for dry lithography. With the emergence of immersion lithography in production in the IC industry, the predictability of this approach has to be validated on this new lithographic process. In this paper, a comparison between the dry lithography process model and the immersion lithography process model is presented for the Poly layer at 65 nm node patterning. Examples of specific failure predictions obtained separately with the two processes are compared with experimental results. A comparison in terms of process performance will also be a part of this study.
© (2006) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Amandine Borjon, Amandine Borjon, Jerome Belledent, Jerome Belledent, Yorick Trouiller, Yorick Trouiller, Kevin Lucas, Kevin Lucas, Christophe Couderc, Christophe Couderc, Frank Sundermann, Frank Sundermann, Jean-Christophe Urbani, Jean-Christophe Urbani, Yves Rody, Yves Rody, Christian Gardin, Christian Gardin, Frank Foussadier, Frank Foussadier, Patrick Schiavone, Patrick Schiavone, } "Process window OPC verification: dry versus immersion lithography for the 65nm node", Proc. SPIE 6154, Optical Microlithography XIX, 61544D (21 March 2006); doi: 10.1117/12.657056; https://doi.org/10.1117/12.657056
PROCEEDINGS
11 PAGES


SHARE
Back to Top