Litho ITRS Update Lithography iTWG December 2008

2 Outline Lithography Potential Solutions Multiple Targets and Solutions Double Exposure Challenges

3 ITRS Working Group United States –Greg Hughes and Michael Lercel (Chairs) Japan –Iwao Higashikawa (Chair) Europe –Mauro Vasconi (Chair) Taiwan Korea –Cho (Chair)

4 Preferred Technology by Year 2008 SEMATECH Litho Forum survey results 45nm HP 32nm HP 22nm HP

5 Potential Solutions nm Immersion with H2O 193 Immersion double patterning 193 nm Immersion Double Pattern EUV (DRAM) Immersion other fluids ML2, Imprint EUV 193 nm Immersion Double Pattern ML2, Imprint

6 Looking at 16nm Half Pitch 2008 SEMATECH Litho Forum survey results

7

8 MPU Printed Gate Length Change

Format

Lithography Technology Requirements DRAM FLASH MPU

11 MPU Details Restricted Definition of CD - one direction, single pitch, single iso dense ratio. Restricted Definition to Single Litho Tool

12

13 Simple shot-noise model predicts 1/ dose relationship between LER and dose Data courtesy of Dr. P. Naulleau (LBNL) and Dr. T. Wallow (AMD) ITRS Dose vs LER

14 Resist Table

15 Double Patterning Challenge

16 Double Exposure Simple double exposure: each feature is exposed independently (2006 ITRS) –Mask Image Placement tightens 70% –Mask Mean to target has to be matched for the two masks MTT/ ITRS- Define Double spaces (Independent Images) –Adds wafer etch bias uniformity and repeatability. Define Double Lines (Dependent Images) –Mask Image Placement tightens –Mask CD 3 sigma tightens

Update Mask Requirements (DE/DP) Note these are issues with LELE, LLE Not the spacer Technology

18 Summary Lithography potential solutions are being narrowed for 45nm DRAM half-pitch –CoO is Driving 193 Immersion Single Exposure –2009 update will be major decision point for 32nm DRAM half-pitch (Double Patterning or EUV) LER and CD Control Still remain as a Dominant Issue Relief on some near term specifications but imaging challenges remain –Flash pushing Half Pitch and Double Patterning Overlay requirements for the Dependent Geometry will remain the challenge –Contact Imaging Remains a challenge for all device types Double exposure / patterning requires a complex set of parameters when different exposures are used to define single features