As far as I am concerned, in an R&D environment where high volume production is not the issue but rather the quality of the finished pattern is, I would rate the systems ISI, Nikon, ASMLF, Canon, SVGL.
If you want to look at it for production worthiness (enough systems can be manufactured and placed into the field and supported), I would probably go with a tie between Nikon and ASMLF, Canon, ISI and SVGL.
At this stage of the game I would be hard pressed to say there are more Micrascans (SVGL) in use than ISI since prior to ISI we had the XLS series of steppers with who knows whose logo on it.
In a perfect world I would want the ISI stepper followed by the Nikon stepper. I will not air dirty laundry here but ASMLF has had a history of issues with their lenses over the past years while I have heard of no issues with ths ISI/GCA lenses of this latest generation.
If memory serves me correct, PLAB recently bought a unit from UTEK. When you consider the phase shift masks will be made at 4X, 5X or 10X there should be little differences between the two. this may be a personal prejudice on my part since the PSM issues are more related to the etching of the quartz more than the patterning tool. If we speculate a feature size of 0.08u at 10X, you will print a reticle pattern at 0.8u which is not an issue for either UTEK or ETEC. I give UTEK the edge for throughput and cost of ownership. going down to 5X you now have 0.40u features where both systems can perform well. The real issues come when we go to the 0.35u or below printed reticle features.
It is my understanding that at this point in time, DPMI believes that the Ultrabeam is incapable or has not demonstrated its ability to do 0.25u features. PLAB bought a system and are bringing it up successfully as we have already read. I have heard of no issues so far but the first implementation seems to be on 0.35u features. therefore, we have a ???? mark that has not been clearly resolved. SO when we talk of 0.08 features today at 4X, you are looking at a 0.32u reticle feature. right now, based on tha available data, I have to give the edge to ETEC.
This can change over time and we must remember that 0.08u technology is still a ways out. when you jump to the 0.25u regime, you are printing in the 1.0u feature size range on the reticle quartz which is a no brainer for both parties. Neither one is really challenged at that level. In this case, you go for the most cost effective solution.
UTEK is the new kid on the block and needs PLAB to prove it is the most cost effective way to produce reticles. Right now ETEC seems to own the business and it is up to UTEK to spirit away market share. I think they can do it.
Andrew |
