Photolithography and X-ray Lithography

  • A. Heuberger
Part of the The IBM Research Symposia Series book series (IRSS)


Very intense technological efforts to increase the integration density of semiconductor devices have been made in the development of new and economical lithography methods for structures below 2 µm. The lithography methods now used for modern fabrication lines are optical projection systems in the wavelength range of 400 to 250 nm, based on high-resolution objective lenses or mirror optics. The resolution limit arising from diffraction is far below 1 µm, and impressive examples of optical sub-µm patterning have already been realized. With increasing resolution, however, equipment costs as well as the complexity of the process technology are growing rapidly, e.g., small step-and-repeat areas, extremely low depth of focus, multilayer techniques, suppression of interference effects, and so on. Therefore, in the practical case of application in circuit fabrication, the resolution limit will be somewhat higher; it seems possible that this will be in the range of 1 µm.

In order to realize a production process to generate sub-µm structures, X-ray lithography is the most promising approach. X-ray lithography at wavelengths between 0.5 and 5 nm is a simple one-to-one shadow-projection process, with structural resolution as good as 0.1 µm under certain conditions. The main factors limiting the resolution are Fresnel diffraction, fast secondary electrons, the relatively-low mask contrast attainable in the soft X-ray range, and — most important — the individual radiation characteristics of the X-ray source in question. For a quantitative comparison of the different X-ray sources which are applicable for lithography, numerical calculations of the generated resist patterns are necessary. The simulation model on which the calculations are based has to take into account the effects mentioned above, depending on the spectral distribution of the individual X-ray source, as well as the spectral absorption of windows, mask substrates, and mask absorbers. Important boundary conditions in this connection derive from the present state of resist technology, especially in regard to sensitivity, and from the necessity of compromising between source radiation power and tolerable mask heating during exposure. Based on these considerations, a comparison between X-ray tubes, storage rings, and plasma sources leads to the conclusion that synchrotron radiation is superior to the others.


Synchrotron Radiation Storage Ring Optical Lithography Fresnel Diffraction Proximity Distance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. /1/.
    W.G. Oldham, A.R. Neureuther, Solid State Technology, May 1981, p. 106Google Scholar
  2. /2/.
    A.R. Neureuther, P.K. Jain, W.G. Oldham, SPIE Vol. 275, Semiconductor Microlithography VI, 1981, p. 110Google Scholar
  3. /3/.
    W. Arden, Siemens Forsch.- u. Entwicklungs.-Ber. Bd. 11 (1982), Nr. 4, Springer-Verlag 1982Google Scholar
  4. /4/.
    W.G. Oldham, Limits of Optical Lithography, Summer Course at Uny. of Leuven, June 1980Google Scholar
  5. /5/.
    D. Widmann, H. Binder, IEEE Trans. ED 22 (1975), p. 467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. /6/.
    D. Maydan, G.A. Coquin, J.J. Levinstein, A.K. Sinha, D.N.K. Wang, 15th Symp. Electron, Ion, Photon Beam Technology, Boston, 1979Google Scholar
  7. /7/.
    W.D. Buckley, J.F. Nester, H. Windischmann, Proceedings Microcircuit Engineering 80, Int. Conf. on Microlithography, Amsterdam, 1980, p. 327Google Scholar
  8. /8/.
    A. Heuberger, H. Betz, S. Pongratz, “Present status and problems of X-ray lithography”, Festkörperprobleme XX, Ed. J. Treusch, Vieweg, Wiesbaden, 1980, p. 259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. /9/.
    W.D. Grobman, “Status of X-ray lithography”, CH 1616–2/80/ 0000–0415, 1980, IEEEGoogle Scholar
  10. /10/.
    H.I. Smith, Proc. Ninth Int. Conf. Electron and Ion Beam Science and Technology, St. Louis, Ed.: R. Bakish, The Electrochemical Society, May 1980Google Scholar
  11. /11/.
    B. Wende, Physikalisch Technische Bundesanstalt, Berlin, private communication, and: G. Herziger, H. Krompholz, W. Schneider, and K. Schönbach: G. Herziger, H. Krompholz, W. Schneider, and K. Schönbach, “A steady-state fluid model of the coaxial plasma gun”, Physics Letters 71A (1979), p. 54Google Scholar
  12. /12/.
    Physics International, PIXI-10 pulsed plasma soft X-ray laboratory source; preliminary specifications, San Leandro, March 1982Google Scholar
  13. /13/.
    K. Heinrich, H. Betz, and A. Neuberger, “Heating and temperature-induced distortions of silicon X-ray masks”, to be published in IEEE EDGoogle Scholar
  14. /14/.
    K. Heinrich, H. Betz, A. Neuberger, and S. Pongratz, “Computer simulations of resist profiles in X-ray lithography”, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. 19 (1981), p. 1254Google Scholar
  15. /15/.
    E.W. Becker, H. Betz, W. Ehrfeld, W. Glashauser, A. Neuberger, H.J. Michel, D. Münchmeyer, S. Pongratz, and R. v. Siemens, “Production of separation nozzle systems for uranium enrichment by a combination of X-ray lithography and galvanoplastics”, to be published in NaturwissenschaftenGoogle Scholar
  16. /16/.
    U. Trinks, F. Nolden, A. Jahnke, “The table-top synchrotron radiation source ”Klein-Erna“, Nuci. Instr. and Methods 200 (1982), p. 475CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Heuberger
    • 1
  1. 1.MikrostrukturtechnikInstitut für FestkörpertechnologieBerlin 33Fed. Rep. of Germany

Personalised recommendations