Toward 22 nm for unit process development using step and flash
imprint lithography
Gerard M. Schmid, Ecron Thompson, Nick Stacey, Douglas J. Resnick,
Molecular Imprints, Inc., 1807C West Braker Lane, Austin TX 78758, USA
Deirdre L. Olynick, Erik H. Anderson
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 Cyclotron Rd, Berkeley CA 94720
Abstract
Imprint lithography has been included on the ITRS Lithography Roadmap at the 32 and 22 nm nodes. Step and
Flash Imprint Lithography (S-FILTM) is a unique method that has been designed from the beginning to enable precise
overlay for creating multilevel devices. A photocurable low viscosity monomer is dispensed dropwise to meet the
pattern density requirements of the device, thus enabling imprint patterning with a uniform residual layer across a field
and across entire wafers. Further, S-FIL provides sub-100 nm feature resolution without the significant expense of
multi-element, high quality projection optics or advanced illumination sources. However, since the technology is 1X, it
is critical to address the infrastructure associated with the fabrication of templates.
This paper addresses steps required to achieve resolution at or below 32 nm. Gaussian beam writers are now
installed in mask shops and are being used to fabricate S-FIL templates. Although the throughput of these systems is
low, they can nevertheless be applied towards applications such as unit process development and device prototyping.
Resolution improvements were achieved by optimizing the ZEP520A resolution and exposure latitude. Key to
the fabrication process was the introduction of thinner resist films and data biasing of the critical features. By employing
a resist thickness of 70 nm and by negatively biasing features as much as 18 nm, 28 nm half-pitch imprints were
obtained. Further processing improvements, including a high resolution lift-off method, show promise for achieving 20
nm half pitch features on a template.
Keywords: S-FIL, template, imprint lithography, 22 nm
1. Introduction
Over the last thirty years, many different varieties of Next Generation Lithographies (NGLs) have been posed as
successors to optical lithography. Examples include proximity x-ray lithography, ion beam lithography (both 1X and
projection), and variants of projection electron lithography (such as SCALPEL and PREVAIL)1-4. Research targeted
towards making these technologies viable for high density silicon manufacturing has all but stopped for the cases
mentioned above. The reason for the discontinuation of funding for each case had very little to do with resolution.
Each technology was clearly capable of resolving 100 nm features and had the potential to resolve geometries much
smaller than 100 nm. Instead, the continued extension of optical lithography combined with the lack of a commercial
mask infrastructure made it extremely difficult for any of these technologies to penetrate the silicon market.
Imprint lithography has been included on the ITRS Lithography Roadmap at the 32 and 22 nm nodes5. This
technology has been shown to be an effective method for replication of nanometer-scale structures from a template
mold. As a high fidelity replication process, the resolution of imprint lithography is determined by the ability to create a
master template having the required dimensions. It is therefore possible to reduce the dimensions of the imprinted
features without developing new optical systems or photoresist materials – ingredients which limit the extendibility and
cost effectiveness of projection photolithography. When the imprint material is a photocurable liquid, it is possible to
perform the imprint process at ambient temperature and pressure, which enables accurate overlay and reduces process
defectivity. With this combination of capabilities, imprint lithography is a multi-node technique that is suitable for
advanced prototyping of processes and devices to meet the anticipated needs of the semiconductor industry.
Emerging Lithographic Technologies XI, edited by Michael J. Lercel,
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6517, 651717, (2007) · 0277-786X/07/$18
doi: 10.1117/12.718155
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6517 651717-1
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 04/21/2014 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
Step and Flash Imprint Lithography (S-FIL™) operates in a step-and-repeat fashion: the processes of deposition
of imprint material, imprint, alignment, photocuring and release all occur sequentially as each die on a wafer is
patterned. S-FIL utilizes UV-curable liquids that are dispensed in a drop-wise fashion to meet the local pattern density
requirements of the template structures, thus enabling imprint patterning with a uniform residual layer. After the
imprint liquid has been dispensed on the wafer, the template is brought into close proximity with the wafer and capillary
forces cause the imprint material to fill the template topography.6 Alignment is performed through the transparent
template while the template and wafer are in lubricated contact. UV exposure solidifies the imprint material, and the
template is then removed from the patterned die. S-FIL has demonstrated sub-20nm resolution and sub-10nm overlay
capability, with uniform residual layer across a field and across a wafer.7,8
With S-FIL patterning, properties such as critical dimension (CD), CD uniformity, and feature sidewall angle
are effectively transferred from the template. Template characteristics are also critical to maintaining low process
defectivity and accurate overlay. It is therefore critical to address the infrastructure associated with the fabrication of
templates. A key benefit of S-FIL is the great similarity between the processes for manufacturing and characterizing SFIL templates and modern photomasks. S-FIL makes use of fused silica templates that can be fabricated with the same
patterning and etch transfer processes that are used for manufacturing chromeless phase-shifting photomasks. The
standard form factor for an S-FIL template is a 65mm x 65mm x 6.35 mm section which is diced from a standard six
inch photomask. Although patterning at 1X dimensions is challenging, it should be appreciated that today’s 4X optical
proximity correction (OPC) designs require features as small as 1.5X. Writing time is also an advantage at 1X, because
of the reduced writing area and the elimination of OPC.
Several commercial mask houses now accept orders for S-FIL templates, which are generally patterned using
electron beam pattern generators. Such pattern generators exist in both variable-shape beam (VSB)9 and Gaussianbeam (GB) configurations.8 VSB tools have been designed for commercial photomask manufacturing and are capable
of high throughput and accurate pattern placement. By comparison, GB tools have been mainly used by researchoriented organizations. GB pattern generators are much slower than VSB tools, but they offer a significant
improvement in resolution; isolated sub-10nm structures are commonly achieved.10 This high-resolution capability is of
increasing commercial value, which is simultaneously driving both improvements in tool performance as well as
placement of these tools in commercial photomask shops.
Although 50 kV VSB tools are responsible for the majority of high resolution writing in the mask shops today,
the best results achieved on an imprint template are limited to a half pitch of 50 nm.11 Since imprint lithography first
appears on the ITRS roadmap at 32 nm, resolution approaching 22 nm must be demonstrated. GB writers are now
installed in mask shops and are being used to fabricate templates. Although the throughput of these systems is low, they
can nevertheless be applied for applications such as unit process development and device prototyping. The purpose of
this work is to optimize the processing of electron beam resists in order to provide the most latitude for 32 nm half pitch
features and beyond.
2. Experimental Details
To generate the template, patterns were exposed using a Vistec VB6 100 kV Gaussian beam writer. ZEP520A
resist was chosen as the positive imaging resist. HSQ was used as a negative resist. After development, the chromium
and fused silica were etched (courtesy of Dai Nippon Printing) using Cl2/O2 and fluorine-based chemistry, respectively.
Mesa lithography and a mesa etch process, followed by a dice and polish step were employed to create a finished 65
mm x 65 mm template.12 The template process flow is depicted in Figure 1.
Imprinting of the template pattern was performed by using a Molecular Imprints Imprio 250 imprint tool. A DropOn-Demand method was employed to dispense the photo-polymerizable acrylate based imprint solution in field
locations across a 200 mm silicon wafer. The template was then lowered into liquid-contact with the substrate,
displacing the solution and filling the imprint field. UV irradiation through the backside of the template cured the
acrylate monomer. The process was then repeated to completely populate the substrate. Details of the imprint process
have previously been reported.13
CD measurements and micrographs of electron beam resists were taken with a LEO 1560 Schottky field emission
SEM. CD measurements and micrographs of the imprinted resist were taken with a JEOL JSM-6340F field emission
cold cathode SEM equipped with a tungsten emitter. The accelerating voltage can be varied from 0.5 to 30 kV. The
system has intrinsic 1.2 nm resolution capability at 15 kV accelerating voltage, and 2.5nm at 1 kV. Critical dimensions
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6517 651717-2
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 04/21/2014 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
are measured manually, by placing markers at the edges of the feature of interest (See, for example, Figures 2a and 2b.).
Because the measurement process is manual, the repeatability of the CD-SEM is > 10 nm (3σ) for line measurements.
Protects active
area
Dicing Prep
5000Å
S-FIL Template
1000Å
1000
Thin Cr
6.35
mm
Litho
15µm
PEB
DEV
Cr
Etch
Resist
Strip
Quartz
Etch
1st or Primary write
Coat
Litho
DEV
Cr
Strip
BOE
(Mesa)
Resist
Strip
Cr
Strip
Coat
2nd Level write
Figure 1. Template fabrication flow, including both the steps necessary to define both the high resolution patterns and
the mesa area.
3. Results
a. 32 nm: Resist Processing
Previous work has demonstrated resolution on templates with half pitch dimensions of 35 – 40 nm.14 An
example of this work is depicted in Figure 2. The templates used to create these imprints were fabricated starting with
100 nm of ZEP520A resist and 15 nm of chromium.
SS SSSS
S
SS S SS S S
•• .. S
•S S
SS
S
S SS
S S S SS • SS S
•• SS SS SS S
S
S
S
SSS SS S S
S
S
:llOeQ:
______I
JUY .UUG. .UIII.
Ii N
S
-
S
S
S
S
S
S
•
•S S
S
Il It
S
S
S
S
S
•• S. S
S
S
S
M IPFIINl S
S
S
SI I
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SSS
S
Si —
S
S
S
S
S
0
S
S
S
S
S
tov I®)O) I)!! V I
Figure 2. 35 and 40 nm half pitch imprinted features previously resolved using 100 nm of ZEP520A electron beam
resist and 15 nm of chromium on a template.
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6517 651717-3
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 04/21/2014 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
To improve resolution, four steps were taken: 1) ultrasonic development of ZEP520A, 2) continued thinning of
both the resist and chromium to minimize forward scattering and avoid line collapse, 3) applying proximity correction
during exposure, and 4) applying a negative bias to all features in order to enhance exposure latitude. Typical patterns
studies included dense lines, Metal 1 patterns, and Logic patterns.
To improve resolution to 32 nm, while still creating a 100 nm relief image in the template, the ZEP520A resist
and chromium were thinned to 70 nm and 10 nm, respectively. Four developers, including two xylene mixtures, amyl
acetate and hexyl acetate were evaluated. The typical develop time was 60 seconds in an ultrasonic bath. A rinse using
isopropyl alcohol followed the develop process. The results of the develop test are shown in the response curves
depicted in Figure 3a. Xylene based development improves resist sensitivity, but at a cost of contrast. Contrast ranged
from 3.0 for xylenes up to 5.6 for hexyl acetate. Contrast for both amyl acetate and hexyl acetate were similar, and since
the resist is more sensitive using amyl acetate, all subsequent testing was done using amyl acetate.
Exposure latitude was evaluated using a 40 nm half-pitch grating and three different feature biases: 0 nm
(unbiased), -10 nm, and -20 nm. The results are shown in Figure 3b. Biasing the critical 40 nm feature by -20 nm results
in an increase in exposure dose of approximately 2.5, however the exposure latitude improves by more than a factor of
four. This is not surprising, because the control of the critical feature is determined primarily by the Gaussian beam tail.
1.0E+01
1.0E+02
1.0E+03
Relative thickness remaining
Xylenes
o-Xylene
Amyl acetate
Hexyl acetate
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Measured resist CD (nm)
80
1.0
Numbers next to curves indicate the digitized CD
70
40 nm
60
30 nm
20 nm
50
40
CD
30
20
80 nm pitch grating
10
0.0
0
Dose (µC/cm2)
200
400
600
2
Dose (µC/cm )
Figure 3. a) response curves for tow xylene mixtures, amyl acetate and hexyl acetate. The best combination of contrast
and sensitivity is achieved with an amyl acetate developer. b) ZEP520A electron beam resist exposure latitude as a
function of feature bias. The best latitude is achieved with larger negative biasing.
Given the success of the exposure latitude test, dense lines, Metal 1 patterns, and Logic patterns were then
exposed in a 70 nm thick ZEP520A film with biases ranging from 0 to – 18 nm. Critical dimensions ranged from 26 to
40 nm. Again, the best latitude and cleanest lithography was obtained with the largest feature biases. The results are
depicted in Figure 4. Shown are 28 nm half pitch lines exposed with a -18 nm bias, and 28 nm Metal 1 and Logic
patterns exposed with a 16.8 nm bias. All features in each pattern are well resolved.
Figure 4. 28 nm resolution achieved in 70 nm of ZEP520A.
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6517 651717-4
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 04/21/2014 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
b. Template Fabrication and Imprint Results
Following resist development, plates were pattern transferred, cut into templates and imprinted on an Imprio 250.
Shown in Figure 5 are two sets of 32 nm half pitch lines (patterned with a -18 nm data bias) at two magnifications. The
difference in electron beam exposure dose used to define these features was approximately 20%. The difference in
feature size over this range in exposure is only 5 nm. The marked improvement in electron beam exposure latitude is
carried over through template pattern transfer and imprint, as shown in Figure 6. The resist data again shows the
improvement in latitude resulting from a -20 nm feature bias. Also plotted is the latitude after imprint for 40 nm lines at
0 nm and -18 nm biases, and 32 nm half pitch lines exposed with a -18 nm bias. There is a small shift in critical
dimension after pattern transfer and imprint. More importantly, however, the exposure latitude is comparable for all
cases.
Figure 5. Imprinted 32 nm half pitch lines are resolved over an electron beam exposure dose range of nearly 20 percent.
Measured resist CD (nm)
80
70
60
No bias
Resist: 0nm bias
Imprint: 0nm bias
Resist: 20nm bias
Imprint: 18nm bias
50 40nm HP
20 nm bias
40
30
32nm HP
20
10
0
200
400
600
Dose (µC/cm2)
Figure 6. A comparison of exposure latitude after electron beam exposure and after imprinting. Latitude is maintained
throughout the entire fabrication process.
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6517 651717-5
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 04/21/2014 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
The 28 nm half-pitch lines and Metal 1 patterns were successfully resolved on the template and the imprinted
wafers, and examples are shown in Figure 7. A cross section of the 28 nm lines is shown in Figure 7b. Wall profile for
all of the imprinted patterns was 87 – 88 degrees.
11.11 'Iii. II." .11.11. liii. .11.14. lIlt .11.11. .11_lI Hit .11.11.
nw mrr nil
.11.11. lIlt .11.11
____ ____ "WE
UN1[ff
4jjjiiit
wnr JEW
HR
___ cr
C1InJ1fl0
___
IL .A*Jt.
!LMMMMII1I4U
n7
lflT lfl? tin 11W lfl? 1W?
M IMP//IN IS
SE'
Inky >135./WI
Saa
IIo,],]
VII) /1),,],,]
Figure 7. SEM images of 28 nm imprinted patterns. A cross section of the dense 28 nm lines depicts a wall profile of
approximately 88 degrees.
c. Resist Processes for 22 nm
An attempt to improve the resolution of the ZEP520A to 22 nm resist consisted of a further reduction in resist
thickness to 50 nm. The chromium thickness was also reduced on the test plate to 7 nm. The images obtained are shown
in Figure 8. The 24 nm and 26 nm lines (Figures 8b and 8c) appear to be well resolved. The 22 nm half pitch features
were also present (Figure 8a), although line edge fidelity was marginal and little exposure latitude was obtained. Further
improvements in resolution may be realized by diluting the developer and developing at lower temperatures.15
Figure 8. 22, 24, and 26 nm half pitch lines resolved in 50 nm of ZEP520A resist.
Sub-22 nm resolution is possible with negative tone HSQ resist. This material is coated from a 2 weight percent
solution of HSQ in anhydrous MIBK. A 35 nm film of HSQ was exposed at 100 keV, developed in a 25 weight percent
TMAH solution for 2 min, and rinsed in DI water. The resulting images are shown in Figure 9. Clockwise, from the top
left are 20 nm Logic patterns, 20 nm half pitch lines, 20 nm Metal 1 patterns, and a 22 nm half pitch contact array. All
patterns were obtained using a feature bias of -12 nm. Further development work is required to understand the
resolution of the template patterns after chromium and fused silica etch, and to determine how far resolution can be
pushed to address future silicon IC requirements.
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6517 651717-6
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 04/21/2014 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
8*
-
33••
3
Figure 9. 20 and 22 nm features resolved in negative HSQ resist. Further work is required to convert the resist images
into template features.
d. Lift-off Process for 22 nm
A lift-off process was employed in order to achieve resolution better than 28nm. All patterning was done on
150mm diameter fused silica wafers. Charging during electron beam exposure can be addressed by either applying a
conductive topcoat on the e-beam resist, or by depositing a conducting layer beneath the resist. In this study, the latter
method was employed. To generate the template relief images, patterns were exposed using a Vistec VB6 100 keV
Gaussian beam writer. PMMA resist was chosen as the positive imaging resist. After development, a thin chromium
layer was evaporated, followed a lift-off using dichloromethane. The remaining chromium features served as a hard
mask for the etch into the fused silica.
The template features are defined using a reactive ion etch process. The etchant gases include CHF3 and argon.
The resulting features are shown in Figure 10. The features are well defined, with a minimum of defective areas.
Occasional image placement problems were noted, however. In addition, there were several instances where the
chromium did not adhere well to the substrate, resulting in missing pillar after the fused silica etch. One example of this
can be observed in the image of the 23nm half pitch features below. The image profile is also less than optimal. It is
likely that some erosion of the chromium mask occurs during the fused silica etch. A wall angle of better than 87o is
preferred, and optimization of the etch process will be a subject for future investigation.
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6517 651717-7
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 04/21/2014 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
S•55S5 5•5•5•5• • •5•.,5.
So.....:.:..
S•S•.•S
• ....•S...:. .. S..
• ••SS•S • 1SsS • S ••S•S•S.
SSSSSSSSSSSSS5SSSSSSSSSS5SSS.• .•
S•5S
•SSS.S.S.
5 . •S S S• 5••S•.•.
555 5•SSSS
S•S•S•S
S
••
•5
S.
5••
S55
S•
S•
• . S S S S S S S S S 5•.s5 55•
••S •
S
23nm
5 •S•5
•.•
.
S....
!
p55S5
S S S ••S • •:•
sass
•.•
: •:• :• :5..:. .• ••.S .s. S•S• ....
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6517 651717-8
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 04/21/2014 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms
. S.. 555 SOSIOSS5•• 00 SOS S
S
eSOs
• •5 555.' 0550 5505550555..
S
.......5.S...555S...
21nm
Figure 11. Imprinted contact patterns down to 21nm half pitch.
eI15555SS505SS555SOSSSSSO
•
,.y_ae5SS550 .SSS5SS.•..
.SSS.S550•SSS0005SSSOSO
25nm
I
•
•.......SSS55.OS..0O.s...
550 S•5S5*S4S00S•05Se50O
•s..,..S5505..SSSSS.SISSS
• ese *SSSO •0S.5 00So0eøS5
....0.S.OSSS0SSSS•SSOSSS5
I
!
I .5..,s.sS.
..i...0S50..OSS*500S555SS
0*0S000ISS5555•l
•..oOCOSSSSSSS050SSISSS0
.
•.s....ss..s.... ...00s55S
So50.0 55 SO es.•505•S. 55.01
•0OSSSSS5550•0•O500S*•55S
•s5005.SssO 0.55. 05S5SsS•l
000 •S.5S SOS050S
0.•S5s•0••
•5S5.050s500 OS 050.SS. 5001
Se 05 5. 0005 00 S5• 0005055555
•500 000S000S055005SO550l
050 sSSSISSs 0S.IS,•5.
000.05
55...
•.550055050055055.
•ss.s000
..ses.......e.sos
...SSI5S' 5• 500510*0500551
.S..•.0•. S.....
••...0000•
•I. *S•* 0• 5*. ••S.50555*50
0
•,U..........•sI••S..S.I
• 0*0 *s$**SS*I**S*SS*S•*
27nm
p
•::.:.:.:.•.:.:.:.:.•.:.;.•.:.:
. :. • .: •S . .
5555 S5S : s:•
S
-.
:!
..S 0I0•5 5555 IS 155
•I*55ISIIIII5II•
5
•..S.............
•....515555515h1"
•. •55 55 5 I5I5S••I
••••••••••'••
r ...I.I55IS5511I51
"H •.S.SS•55SI•SI••5
•.......S.5S555555
..........5555'S
•..
.•S I 55 551• ISIS.
.sS•55 ISSII5II5•5
..........'..'•''
.....S•...........
•......I5.II.55S5
•....S...........
SsS•50SI
•..I5I5S'5
p
23nm
I
I
S.. S
F:
5
•............I..I
55
SI II • 5• 5 5 5 • 55
II 1•.s5•
fl....S5•5155511551
......•S..........
I1..
SI.
,sSS.S.SS 55•S5
I;;•s
55I.
I 1•s.SS•'' 555
27nm
I!
25nm
21nm
Figure 10. Template features after the fused silica etch. Dense features with a half pitch as small as 21nm were clearly
resolved.
After the pattern transfer of the pillars was complete, the resulting templates were used for imprint studies. The
results are depicted in Figure 11. Good uniformity was noted for the 27nm and 25nm arrays. More irregularities occur in
the smaller features, and include CD nonuniformity, image placement errors, and missing holes. In general, the imprint
process faithfully replicated the features on the template.
4. Conclusion
A template fabrication process was developed by improving the resolution and exposure latitude in ZEP520A
resist. Imprinted features with a half pitch of 28 nm were clearly resolved. Resist processes have also been identified
that can reduce the half pitch to 20 nm, however pattern transfer optimization of the template is required to realize the
resolution enhancements. To address early unit process development at 22 nm, a lift-off process was used to create
templates with half pitches as small as 21 nm. Templates were fabricated and successfully used to create corresponding
imprints.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Masaaki Kurihara, Shiho Sasaki, Nobuhito Toyama and Naoya Hayashi from Dai
Nippon Printing for pattern transfer work and for providing SEM images. The authors also appreciate the support of S.
V. Sreenivasan and Mark Melliar-Smith. This work was partially funded by DARPA (N66001-02-C-8011) and NISTATP.
References
1. Henry I. Smith and S. E. Bernacki, J. of Vac. Sci. Technol. Vol. 12, Issue 6, pp. 1321-1323, 1975.
2. P. E. Mauger, A. R. Shimkunas, J. C. Wolfe, S. Sen, H. Löschner, and G. Stengl, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 10, 2819
(1992).
3. M. M. Mkrtchyan, J. A. Liddle, A. E. Novembre, W. K. Waskiewicz, G. P. Watson, L. R. Harriott, and D. A.
Muller , J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 16, 3385 (1998)
4. H. C. Pfeiffer et al., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 17, 2840 (1999).
5. http://public.itrs.net/
6. T. Bailey, B. J. Choi, M. Colburn, M. Meissl, S. Shaya. J. G. Ekerdt, S. V. Sreenivasan, and C. G. Willson, J. Vac.
Sci. Technol. B 18(6), 3572 (2000).
7. I. McMackin, J. Choi, P. Schumaker, V. Nguyen, F. Xu, E. Thompson, D. Babbs, S. V. Sreenivasan, M. Watts, and
N. Schumaker, Proc. SPIE 5374, 222 (2004).
8. D. J. Resnick, W. J. Dauksher, D. P. Mancini, K. J. Nordquist, E. S. Ainley, K. A. Gehoski, J. H. Baker, T. C.
Bailey, B. J. Choi, S. C. Johnson, S. V. Sreenivasan, J. G. Ekerdt, C. G. Willson, Proc. SPIE Vol. 4688, p. 205-213,
2002.
9. W. J. Dauksher, D. Mancini, K. Nordquist, D. J. Resnick, P. Hudek, D. Beyer, T. Groves, O. Fortagne,
Microelectronic Engineering, Vol 75, Issue 4 , November 2004, 345-351
10. G. Jones, M. Saifullah, K. Subramanian, D. Anderson, D.-J. Kang, W. Huck, M. Welland, to be published in J.
Vac. Sci. Technol. B., Nov/Dec 2006.
11. M. Irmscher, J. Butschke, G. Hess, C. Koepernik, F. Letzkus, M. Renno, H. Sailer, H. Schulz, A. Schwersenz, E.
Thompson, Proc. SPIE Vol. 6151, (2006).
12. L. J. Myron, L. Gershtein, G. Gottlieb, B. Burkhardt, A. Griffiths, D. Mellenthin, K. Rentzsch, S. MacDonald, G.
Hughes, Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5752, pp. 384-391, 2005.
13. M. Colburn, T. Bailey, B. J. Choi, J. G. Ekerdt, S. V. Sreenivasan, Solid State Technology, 67, June 2001.
14. D. J. Resnick, E. Thompson, L. J. Myron, G. M. Schmid, Microlithography World, Feb. 2006.
15. W. Hu, K. Sarveswaran, M. Lieberman, G. H. Bernstein, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 22(4), 1711 (2004).
Proc. of SPIE Vol. 6517 651717-9
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/ on 04/21/2014 Terms of Use: http://spiedl.org/terms