Just one
word: throughput. That's the most important factor that
will determine whether or not electron projection
lithography will be the technology of choice when the
semiconductor industry abandons today's optical tools
and moves to a next-generation lithography capable of
resolving IC features as small as 45 nm. The shift is
expected in 2009.
Throughput—the number of wafers that a lithographic
tool can process in an hour—determines how fast a
semiconductor manufacturer can build ICs. So it's
directly connected to profits. But electron projection
lithography performs its magic slowly; its throughput is
low, and the likelihood is that it will be unable to
achieve the dominant position once expected of it. At
most, semiconductor manufacturers expect it to process
30 wafers per hour.
But Bernie Roman, manager of advanced lithography
development, Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector, in
Austin, Texas, thinks that to meet the needs of
industry, throughput should be much higher. "We would be
looking for throughput of 50 to 80 wafers per hour on
any 45-nm production lithography tool that uses a mask,"
he says. "I'm not sure that it's possible with EPL."
Nevertheless, Nikon Corp. is pushing ahead with its
development of the one and only electron projection
system slated for commercialization. (The company
declined to be quoted in this article.)
Electron Projection Lithography
Goal:
Design and build a tool to print very small
structures—65 nm and below—on semiconductor wafers
Why it's a
Loser: Although electron projection
lithography is capable of producing 45-nm structures and
even smaller ones, it can't process enough wafers in an
hour to satisfy industry expectations
Organization:
Nikon Corp.
Center of
Activity: Tokyo, Japan
Number of People on the
Project: Confidential
Budget: Confidential
Electron projection lithography works by passing a
beam of energetic electrons through a mask containing
holes that define the circuit pattern for one layer of
the IC. The electrons print the layer's pattern on a
photoresist—a film of photosensitive material—that
covers the wafer. But since electrons are charged
particles, they repel each other. This phenomenon limits
the strength of the beam current that can be used to
expose the photoresist. The smaller the current, the
longer the exposure time needed to create the pattern.
Unfortunately, as feature sizes shrink in future
semiconductor generations, the problem gets worse,
slowing throughput even more.
Another factor that limits throughput is that the
diameter of the electron beam is slightly larger than a
millimeter. As a result, the mask is divided into
1-mm2 subfields and the beam
illuminates the subfields one at a time.
Nikon's electron optics, designed by IBM Corp.
scientists in the company's Microelectronics Division,
in Wappinger's Falls, N.Y., can steer the beam quickly
over 20 1-mm2 subfields in
succession without the need to move the wafer. But then
the wafer must be shifted to a new position so that the
beam can expose a different area. (IBM declined repeated
requests for comment.)
Thus, to expose a typical
100-mm2 chip, the wafer,
which currently can be as large as 300 mm in diameter,
must be shifted many times. And repeatedly shifting the
wafer adds a good deal of time to the exposure process.
Today's optical lithographic systems, in contrast, can
expose an entire chip in a fraction of a second.
Beyond its weakness of low throughput, however, EPL
has several strengths. For one thing, electron-beam
optics similar to EPL's has been around for decades and
has reached a fine art.
One type of system, called direct-write, uses an
extremely narrow beam of electrons to create the
patterns on the chrome masks used for optical
lithography. In fact, many development laboratories
already use such a system to develop advanced devices.
Another strength is the electron projection system's
incredible depth of focus. There's an inverse
relationship between the numerical aperture of an
optical system—a number analogous to a camera's
f-stop—and the depth of focus. Because the wavelength
of the electrons is only a fraction of a nanometer, the
numerical aperture of the electron optics can be
extremely small. Nikon's tool has a numerical aperture
of less than 0.02, giving it a depth of focus of
micrometers.
Compare that result with today's optical tools, which
have pushed numerical apertures close to the fundamental
limit of 1.00 to obtain good resolution "A Little Light
Magic," IEEE
Spectrum, September, pp. 3439]. "With
optical tools," says Obert Wood, a senior technologist
at International Sematech in Austin, Texas, "there's no
depth of focus left. You have to be within a tenth of a
micrometer or so of the optimum focus or the [chip]
features blur and enlarge."
Electron projection's large depth of focus is a strong
advantage in printing transistor contacts and vias,
which join two different levels of metal wiring.
Bryan Christie
|
Projecting Electrons: In Nikon's electron projection tool, a
magnetic lens focuses an electron beam
roughly 1 mm across onto a
1-mm2 subfield on
the mask, then deflects the beam
horizontally to rapidly image 20 subfields
in sequence. As the beam passes through the
projection lens, the image of each subfield
is reduced by a factor of four and projected
onto the wafer.
|
Both require deep, narrow holes in the
photoresist. Indeed, if the technology is accepted by
industry, it will be used first to form these levels on
the wafer.
Still, the large depth of focus may not be enough of a
motivation for companies to accept electron projection
lithography. "The industry has been able to deal with
shrinking depth of focus in optical lithography pretty
much since its inception," says Motorola's Roman. "And I
firmly believe that we will be able to continue to do that."
While throughput is an important factor for
semiconductor manufacturers, a high yield may be more
important. After all, what good is a high throughput if
the yield of good chips is poor?
A third strength of electron projection is the
relative simplicity of its masks. That simplicity should
make them much cheaper than optical masks, which now
require expensive correction techniques like phase-shift
masks and double exposures [see, again, "A Little Light
Magic"]. The projected cost of an optical mask set for
next-generation ICs, which is expected to exceed US $1
million, may not be worth it for those ASIC
manufacturers who need only a few wafers at a time for
their product. These manufacturers may care less about
throughput than they do about mask costs.
Besides electron projection, several other contenders
are vying for the top spot in next-generation
lithography, the most popular of which is the
extreme-ultraviolet approach, now being strongly
promoted by Intel Corp., Santa Clara, Calif. An
extreme-ultraviolet tool uses light—actually soft
X-rays—with a wavelength of only 13.5 nm.
The system employs reflective optics rather than the
refractive optics of today's tools, and the mirrors and
masks are complicated structures with many thin,
atomically smooth alternating layers of molybdenum and
silicon. In addition, the throughput of these tools so
far is also limited, not by the basic physics but
because the ultraviolet beam isn't strong enough for
fast exposure.
Developers are hoping that extreme-ultraviolet tools
and the infrastructure needed to support them will be in
place in 2009, when the semiconductor industry is
scheduled to begin producing ICs with feature sizes of
45 nm.
Optimistically, electron projection lithography may
not have to compete with extreme-ultraviolet. In fact
they could peacefully coexist in a wafer fabrication
facility, with electron projection used to make the
contacts and vias and extreme ultraviolet used for the
other critical levels.
Nikon has already built two experimental systems and
has shipped one of them to Selete, short for
Semiconductor Leading Edge Technologies Inc., a
consortium of Japanese companies developing the
infrastructure—the mask, photoresist, and other
technology—needed for electron projection.
All told, it would be an advantage for electron
projection lithography to gain a foothold in the
industry before extreme ultraviolet comes on-line in
2009. Otherwise, if extreme ultraviolet can make
contacts and vias well enough to satisfy the
requirements of semiconductor manufacturing, it may not
matter that electron projection can make them better.