On comparing conventional and electrically driven OPC techniques

Dominic Reinhard; Puneet Gupta

doi:10.1117/12.833502

23 September 2009 On comparing conventional and electrically driven OPC techniques

Dominic Reinhard, Puneet Gupta

Proceedings Volume 7488, Photomask Technology 2009; 748838 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.833502
Event: SPIE Photomask Technology, 2009, Monterey, California, United States

Abstract

This paper compares the range of accepted layouts produced by conventional Shape Driven Proximity Correction (SDOPC) and Electrically Driven Optical Proximity Correction (EDOPC). For SDOPC, correction is made until a target geometry matches a layout. In EDOPC, current matching is the primary objective.^1-6 Using electrical objectives results in a smaller fragmentation requirement for an equivalent current accuracy as SDOPC. Number of candidate OPC solutions accepted by EDOPC is orders of magnitude higher than SDOPC leading to potentially much faster convergence. Moreover, due to additional flexibility in EDOPC, it is able to correct several layouts which are not correctable by SDOPC with the same fragmentation.

Citation Download Citation

Dominic Reinhard and Puneet Gupta "On comparing conventional and electrically driven OPC techniques", Proc. SPIE 7488, Photomask Technology 2009, 748838 (23 September 2009); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.833502

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available