Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : JMAR Technologies(JMAR) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: henry jakala who wrote (4472)	12/16/1997 12:04:00 AM
From: Starlight	Respond to of 9695

Here is an article on XRL masks that I copied from the SAL website: X-ray vs. 193nm Lithography: A Mask Maker's Perspective Brian J. Grenon, Grenon Consulting, Inc There is a saying in the photomask industry that, when semiconductor lithography went from 1X projection printing to 4X and 5X steppers, mask makers went on vacation. Photomask fabricators and wafer lithographers are paying for the "vacation" with lower yields, higher prices, and longer cycle times for critical masks. While optical mask makers were on vacation, x-ray mask technologists were rising to the challenges that lay before them. The fruits of these efforts have recently become evident: x-ray masks are starting to compete with leading edge optical masks in cost, quality, and availability. Historically, optical lithographers assumed that photomask technology development would keep pace with wafer lithography, however this is not the case for masks for 193nm lithography. Many mask fabricators are still struggling with challenges of providing high quality masks for 248nm lithography. Here, we will take a brief look at some of the key issues involving the fabrication of optical masks for 193nm lithography and compare them to the status of x-ray mask fabrication for 180nm semiconductor fabrication. As feature sizes approach 180nm, the portion of the lithography error budget allotted for the mask becomes smaller. For example, as optical lithography k-factors become lower, the effects of mask errors become greater, resulting in tighter tolerances for 4X optical reticles. Table 1 provides specification values for 4X reticles for 180nm lithography and a comparison to current lithography capability. It is clearly evident that a significant gap exists. Table 2 provides a typical specification for a 1X x-ray mask for 180nm features, with a comparison to current capability. Table 1. Requirements vs. Capability for 193nm DUV Photomasks Parameter 180 nm Requirement Current Optical Capability Minimum Feature 650 nm 500 nm Minimum OPC Feature 200 nm 200 nm CD Control: x-bar 15 nm 50 nm 3-sigma 20 nm 50 nm linearity 20 nm 50 nm Edge Roughness 10 nm 40 nm Placement 32 nm 40 nm Table 2. Requirements vs. Demonstrated X-ray Mask Capability Parameter 180 nm Requirement Current X-ray Capability Minimum Feature 180 nm 130 nm Minimum OPC Feature Not Required CD Control: x-bar 7 nm 15 nm 3-sigma 15 nm 18 nm linearity 10 nm 10 nm Edge Roughness 15 nm 15 nm Placement 22 nm 25 nm Optical Mask Issues for 180nm CD's From Tables 1 and 2 it can be seen that x-ray mask capability is significantly ahead of optical mask capability for 180nm lithography. The reason for this is quite simple: there is no fabrication infrastructure for the making of 180nm optical masks. The following are the key issues surrounding 180nm optical masks: Data Manipulation and Volume Data volumes for optical mask fabrication will be higher and more costly than for x-ray masks. These data volumes will be driven by the need for optical proximity correction (OPC) and phase shifting. Both increase data volumes as a result of added shapes. Mask Substrate Questions regarding the stability of quartz and chrome to 193nm irradiation need to be resolved. Is a new mask film required? Resist and Process Currently, poly-butene sulfone (PBS) is the industry standard for e-beam lithography. A new dry etchable resist is required to meet 180nm groundrules. There are no obvious choices for PBS replacement. Lithography Current raster scan systems are not capable of producing masks for future groundrules. Questions also exist as to whether raster scan e-beam technology is the preferred technology. Issues such as corner rounding, line edge shortening, and linearity need to be addressed. Shaped-beam high accelerating voltage e-beam lithography with robust proximity effect correction is required. This approach is currently used for x-ray mask fabrication, but is not available for optical mask fabrication. Metrology Optical linewidth measurement systems do not have precision or accuracy to measure masks to required specifications. SEM would be the preferred method, however mask grounding and charging need to be addressed. SEM is the choice for x-ray. Defect Inspection X-ray masks are inspected using e-beam mask defect inspection techniques that are capable of finding defects consistent with specifications. Optical masks are currently inspected at a wavelength of 488nm with a progression to 365nm and ultimately 248nm. Questions arise as to whether inspecting a mask at 365nm or 248nm will find all the defects that may print at 193nm. Mask Repair Laser repair and ion beam repair capability is inadequate for 180nm optical masks. These technologies are even inadequate for 250nm masks. X-ray masks are repaired using conventional focused ion beam repair systems. Pellicles Teflon-type pellicles are used for DUV lithography. A new pellicle film needs to be developed for 193nm lithography. Pellicles are not required for x-ray lithography. Summary Table 3 summarizes the current state of mask making infrastructure for both x-ray and 193nm optical lithography. In conclusion, while some improvement in x-ray masks is required in the area of CD control and cycle time, the technology exists to make high quality x-ray masks. On the other hand, significant development and capital investment is required prior to realization of the high quality optical masks for 193nm lithography. Table 3. Advanced Mask Infrastructure: X-ray vs. 193nm X-ray Masks 193 nm Optical Masks Substrate Defined/Available Not Defined Resist Defined Not Defined Lithography Defined Not Available Process Defined Not Defined Metrology Defined Not Defined Defect Inspection Defined Not Available Defect Repair Defined Not Defined About The Author Brian Grenon was the lead engineer for mask strategic planning and advanced mask development in the IBM Essex Junction facility. During his 19 years at IBM, he was responsible for advanced mask lithography and processes, defect inspection, repair and manufacturing yield management. Grenon has numerous patents in mask technology and has over 50 publications in various areas of mask technology including pattern generation, optical proximity correction, phase shift, and process development. He is currently Co-chair of I997's 17th Annual Photomask Technology and Management Symposium sponsored by SPIE. Mr. Grenon is now President of Grenon Consulting, Inc, an independent mask technology consulting firm.

To: henry jakala who wrote (4472)	12/16/1997 9:17:00 AM
From: Candle stick	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9695

Jmar is presenting on both days , the 15th and 16th. I was not there. But, I did hear the following which was very positive: Dr. Martinez feels that each of the three businesses currently operating are individually worth MORE than JMAR as a whole. He feels that each and every seperate part is worth More that the current valuation of Jmar as a whole. He is interested in doing 1 or 2 "equity carve outs" to realize this hidden value........... IBM is building a fab in upstate NY that will use X-ray Lithography and synchotron system to be producing chips in commercial quantities by 1999. The importance of this cannot be understated. It will create a great acceptance for X-Ray lithograhy and a wide market for Jmar's point source system.(He feels that Cymer has real problems, and that Lucents 'Scalpel' system is not viable) There should be an order for this point source system as early as 1998. Britelight systems will be being ordered and shipped in 1998. This is the biggest new product for Jmar in 1998. Ongoing businesses continue to grow. Thats all I know at the moment. I will be back when I get more info. I hear the presentation went very well, was quite impressive, and included a 1 hour slide presentation and the new JMAR video.