**2.3.4 Examination of simulation**

We performed EUVL simulations using the simulation parameters obtained. Table 7 gives the simulation conditions used.

Table 7. Simulation conditions

Approach to EUV Lithography Simulation 185

We compared the results of EUVL simulations based on parameters obtained with KrF exposures to the results of EUVL simulations based on parameters obtained with EUV exposures. While the former simulation results indicated higher sensitivity (approximately

We compared the results of EUVL simulations based on parameters obtained with KrF exposures to the results of EUVL simulations based on parameters obtained with EUV exposures. The former resulted in approximately 20% higher simulation sensitivity, but we saw no major differences in shape. Using parameters obtained with KrF exposure is a roundabout way to perform EUVL simulations. Since EUV exposures in many cases are not readily available, a valid option would appear to be to acquire simulation parameters through KrF exposures and to use these parameters as initial values in calculations for

[3] V. N. Golovkina, P. F. Nealy, F. Cerrina, J. W. Taylor, H. H. Saolak, C. David and J.

[6] H. B. Cao, W. Yueh, J. Roberts, B. Rice, R. Bristol and M. Chandhok. *Proc. SPIE,*5753, 459,

http://www.intel.com/jp/technology/index.htm?iid=subhdr-JP+tech [5] ITRS 2005:International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors 2005 Edition

[10] A. Sekiguchi, C. A. Mack, Y. Minami and T. Matsuzawa, *Proc. SPIE,* 2725, 49, 1996

[14] A. Sekiguchi, Y. Kono, M. kadoi, Y. Minami,T. Kozawa, S.Tagawa, D. Gustafson and P.

[15] A. Sekiguchi, Y. Minami, and Y. Sensu, The Electrochemical Society of Japan, Proc. of

[16] Dill-B F. H. Dill, W. P. Hornberger, P. S. Hauge, and J. M. Shaw, *IEEE Trans. Electron* 

[17] C. A. Mack, T. Matsuzawa, A. Sekiguchi, and Y. Minami, *Proc. SPIE*, Vol. 2725, pp. 34-48

the 42nd Sysmp. on Semiconductors and Integrated Circuits Technology, Vol. 42,

20% higher), we saw no major differences in shape.

**2.4 Conclusion** 

EUVL simulations.

**3. References** 

[4] Intel H.P.

[8] ASLM H.P.

2005 [7] NIKON H.P.

[1] B. J. Lin, *Proc. SPIE,* 4688, 11, 2002

URL : http://www.asml.co.jp [9] P. Blackborow, *Proc. SPIE,* 6151, 25, 2006

[13] 7th EUVL symposium in Lake Tahoe, CA (2008.10)

Blackborow, *Proc. SPIE*, 6519, 168 (2007).

*Dev.*, Vol. ED-22, No. 7, pp. 445-452 (1975).

[11] Prolith Version 9.3 User's manual [12] ITRS LOAD MAP 2007 Up-date in Web

pp. 109-114 (1992).

(1996).

[2] IMEC 4th Immersion Workshop, September in Belgium, 2005

Gobrecht, *J. Vac. Sci*., *Technol*. B, 22(1), 99, 2004

http://www.nikon.co.jp/news/2007/0711\_nsr\_01.htm

For exposure equipment, our simulation assumed use of the Nikon EUV-1 installed at Selete [19]. Fig.17 shows the simulation results. The indicated exposure value is the exposure level (E0) that achieved 1:1 resolution from a 28-nm L&S pattern. The development conditions called for 2.38% TMAH and development time of 60 seconds. The quencher diffusion length and PAG diffusion length were set to 20 nm and 10 nm, respectively.

Fig. 17. Simulation results

We compared the results of EUVL simulations based on parameters obtained with KrF exposures to the results of EUVL simulations based on parameters obtained with EUV exposures. While the former simulation results indicated higher sensitivity (approximately 20% higher), we saw no major differences in shape.
