Comments on: SPIE Advanced Lithography 2013 – day 3

By: David

David — Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Actually I found Chris's paper rather uplifting - it captured well the massive paradigm shift that is occurring at the moment.

As for profit, it's doubtful whether we could be at the conference without it.

And even Gurus have been known to forget a label on an axis - to quote a Texas Governor - Oops ;-)

By: Sekar

Sekar — Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Is there any specific reason why the definition of Design Gap is associated with I(ntel)!!

By: brennan

brennan — Mon, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Thanks for the talks. I agree that the opening talk captured the scaling->design/software coupling that is underway. The real puzzle: If lithography is scaling toward lines over lines, with overlay requiring omnipresent nitrides for self alignment...the design space is inherently very constrained.

A revolution in design may be needed, but there needs to be a secondary opening of the manufacturable design space. Mapper might answer this, but more generally, I worry that we think in constrained terms.

On the LER area, it remains a puzzle to me that effective optical or spectral means to diagnose roughness and correlation factors haven't worked out. For EUV mirrors, and most surface phenomena, there are effective optical (or xray) methods. But none for LER. I have no good physical sense (volumetric scattering or otherwise) on why this is true.