1. Field of the Invention
This invention generally relates to dynamic design attributes for wafer inspection.
2. Description of the Related Art
The following description and examples are not admitted to be prior art by virtue of their inclusion in this section.
An integrated circuit (IC) design may be developed using a method or system such as electronic design automation (EDA), computer aided design (CAD), and other IC design software. Such methods and systems may be used to generate the circuit pattern database from the IC design. The circuit pattern database includes data representing a plurality of layouts for various layers of the IC. Data in the circuit pattern database may be used to determine layouts for a plurality of reticles. A layout of a reticle generally includes a plurality of polygons that define features in a pattern on the reticle. Each reticle is used to fabricate one of the various layers of the IC. The layers of the IC may include, for example, a junction pattern in a semiconductor substrate, a gate dielectric pattern, a gate electrode pattern, a contact pattern in an interlevel dielectric, and an interconnect pattern on a metallization layer.
The term “design data” as used herein generally refers to the physical design (layout) of an IC and data derived from the physical design through complex simulation or simple geometric and Boolean operations.
Fabricating semiconductor devices such as logic and memory devices typically includes processing a substrate such as a semiconductor wafer using a large number of semiconductor fabrication processes to form various features and multiple levels of the semiconductor devices. For example, lithography is a semiconductor fabrication process that involves transferring a pattern from a reticle to a resist arranged on a semiconductor wafer. Additional examples of semiconductor fabrication processes include, but are not limited to, chemical-mechanical polishing (CMP), etch, deposition, and ion implantation. Multiple semiconductor devices may be fabricated in an arrangement on a single semiconductor wafer and then separated into individual semiconductor devices.
Inspection processes are used at various steps during a semiconductor manufacturing process to detect defects on wafers to promote higher yield in the manufacturing process and thus higher profits. Inspection has always been an important part of fabricating semiconductor devices such as ICs. However, as the dimensions of semiconductor devices decrease, inspection becomes even more important to the successful manufacture of acceptable semiconductor devices because smaller defects can cause the devices to fail.
As design rules shrink, however, semiconductor manufacturing processes may be operating closer to the limitations on the performance capability of the processes. In addition, smaller defects can have an impact on the electrical parameters of the device as the design rules shrink, which drives more sensitive inspections. Therefore, as design rules shrink, the population of potentially yield relevant defects detected by inspection grows dramatically, and the population of nuisance defects detected by inspection also increases dramatically. Therefore, more and more defects may be detected on the wafers, and correcting the processes to eliminate all of the defects may be difficult and expensive.
In trying to maximize the sensitivity of the inspection system to capture subtle spatially systematic “design-for-manufacturability” (DFM) defects resulting from design and process interdependencies, the system may be overwhelmed by millions of events in non-critical areas such as CMP fill regions. Detecting such nuisance defects is disadvantageous for a number of reasons. For example, these nuisance events need to be filtered out of the inspection results by post-processing of the inspection data. In addition, nuisance event detection limits the ultimate achievable sensitivity of the inspection system for DFM applications. A high rate of nuisance defect data may also overload the run time data processing capacity of the inspection system thereby reducing throughput and/or causing the loss of data.
Accordingly, it would be advantageous to develop methods and/or systems for wafer inspection-related applications that do not have one or more of the disadvantages described above.
The following description of various embodiments is not to be construed in any way as limiting the subject matter of the appended claims.
One embodiment relates to a method for wafer inspection. The method includes, at run time of a wafer inspection recipe, prompting a user of a wafer inspection tool on which the wafer inspection recipe is performed for information for a design based binning process. The information includes one or more formulae for calculating design attributes from a design for a wafer. The design attributes are used to bin defects in the design based binning process. The method also includes receiving the information from the user and updating the wafer inspection recipe based on the received information. In addition, the method includes performing inspection of the wafer according to the updated wafer inspection recipe. Performing the inspection includes scanning at least a portion of the wafer with the wafer inspection tool thereby generating output responsive to light from at least a portion of the wafer. Performing the inspection also includes detecting defects on the wafer based on the output. In addition, performing the inspection includes binning the defects detected on the wafer according to the design based binning process in the updated wafer inspection recipe. The prompting, receiving, updating, performing, scanning, detecting, and binning steps are performed by the wafer inspection tool.
The method described above may be performed as described further herein. In addition, the method described above may include any other step(s) of any other method(s) described herein. Furthermore, the method described above may be performed by any of the systems described herein.
Another embodiment relates to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions executable on a computer system of a wafer inspection tool for performing a computer-implemented method for wafer inspection. The computer-implemented method includes the steps of the method described above. The computer-readable medium may be further configured as described herein. The steps of the computer-implemented method may be performed as described further herein. In addition, the computer-implemented method for which the program instructions are executable may include any other step(s) of any other method(s) described herein.
An additional embodiment relates to a wafer inspection tool. The wafer inspection tool includes an optical subsystem configured to scan at least a portion of a wafer thereby generating output responsive to light from at least the portion of the wafer. The wafer inspection tool also includes a computer subsystem configured for, at run time of a wafer inspection recipe, prompting a user of the wafer inspection tool on which the wafer inspection recipe is performed for information for a design based binning process. The information includes one or more formulae for calculating design attributes from a design for the wafer. The design attributes are used to bin defects in the design based binning process. The computer subsystem is also configured for receiving the information from the user and updating the wafer inspection recipe based on the received information. In addition, the computer subsystem is configured for detecting defects on the wafer based on the output and binning the defects detected on the wafer according to the design based binning process in the updated wafer inspection recipe. The wafer inspection tool may be further configured as described herein.
Other objects and advantages of the invention will become apparent upon reading the following detailed description and upon reference to the accompanying drawings in which:
While the invention is susceptible to various modifications and alternative forms, specific embodiments thereof are shown by way of example in the drawings and will herein be described in detail. It should be understood, however, that the drawings and detailed description thereto are not intended to limit the invention to the particular form disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is to cover all modifications, equivalents and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope of the present invention as defined by the appended claims.
Turning now to the drawings, it is noted that the figures are not drawn to scale. In particular, the scale of some of the elements of the figures is greatly exaggerated to emphasize characteristics of the elements. It is also noted that the figures are not drawn to the same scale. Elements shown in more than one figure that may be similarly configured have been indicated using the same reference numerals. Unless otherwise noted herein, any of the elements described and shown may include any suitable commercially available elements.
Design based binning (DBB) is a feature that is part of some wafer inspection tools. This feature enables correlating defect locations based on chip design data. This technology has enabled the following use cases on inspection tools:
a) Ability to remove systematic nuisance defects;
b) Systematic defect discovery; and
c) Systematic defect classification and monitoring.
For example, design attributes like pattern density and intersection area, which are basically computed based on specific mathematical operations performed on polygonal data, enhance the existing defect attribute paradigm with a rich set of design based information. This design based information is useful in helping bin new nuisance defect types with ease. A “nuisance” or “nuisance defect” is a term commonly used in the art to refer to a potential defect that is detected on a wafer, but that is not an actual defect that is of interest to a user. In this manner, a “nuisance defect” may simply be noise on the wafer that is detected by inspection, which is not representative of any actual defect on the wafer, or an actual defect that the user does not care about.
The only drawback today is that these operations are implemented inside the code as functions. For example, currently, all of the attribute definitions are implemented in the software as functions. The system may implement a set of design based attributes based on predefined operations for one or more layers. If any new attribute needs to be supported, with a new formula, the code has to be modified to introduce new functions. In other words, if new attributes that involve operations are needed, the code must be changed and new calculation logic must be introduced to the software. This requires new software to be released to the field to introduce the new attribute(s). There is no way for the wafer inspection tool user to change the formulae behind the attribute calculation. The customer of the inspection tool can be requested to create the combination data using electronic design automation (EDA). But this again is difficult because of interfacing requirements between design and defect teams.
One embodiment relates to a method for wafer inspection, as shown in
The information includes one or more formulae for calculating design attributes from a design for a wafer. The design attributes are used to bin defects in the design based binning process. In this manner, the embodiments enable users to define formulae for calculating design attributes. Therefore, the logic behind the calculation of a dynamic design attribute may be obtained from a user of the wafer inspection tool. This way customers and applications engineers can come up with their own formulae based on the interaction between multiple layers of polygons. These formulae can result in different “dynamic design attributes” in the customer's inspection results. The user can add any number of dynamic design attributes. In addition, the embodiments provide users with the flexibility to derive design attribute formulae based on learning in the field. Attributes can be generated on the fly, dynamically. The embodiments described herein are therefore dynamic and have more user control.
The formulae can be applied on “design clips.” A “design clip” as that term is used herein is defined as a relatively small portion of the entire design data for the wafer. For example, in one embodiment, the one or more formulae include one or more formulae for calculating the design attributes from portions of design data for the design surrounding locations of the defects detected on the wafer. The portions of the design data surrounding locations of the defects detected on the wafer can be design clips extracted from the entire design data based on the design space coordinates of the defects, which may be determined as described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,570,796 issued on Aug. 4, 2009 to Zafar et al., which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. In this manner, the attributes can be calculated on the design clips surrounding the defect locations for binning defects effectively.
Information for a dynamic design attribute, some or all of which may be provided by a user, may include an attribute name, an attribute description, an attribute internal name, a calculation formula, which may be one or more formulae described further herein, an attribute datatype, and an attribute value. In one embodiment, the information for the DBB process includes flags for each of the design attributes indicating whether the design attributes are categorical attributes or measurement attributes. A categorical attribute is an attribute that defines a type of the defect and can be expressed as an alphanumeric string. For example, a categorical attribute may be defect types such as bridge defect, particulate defect, and the like. A measurement attribute may be an attribute that defines a dimension of the defect and can be expressed by a value for a measurement or a range of values for the measurement. For example, a measurement attribute may be a range of widths of the defects. In another embodiment, the binning step separates the defects based on portions of design data for the wafer surrounding locations of the defects detected on the wafer, and the information includes flags for each of the design attributes indicating an extent of the portion of the design data used to calculate the design attributes. In one such embodiment, the extent of the portions of the design data are an entirety of the portions of the design data or an area of interest within the portion of the design data. For example, the dynamic design attribute may have a flag indicating whether the attribute is for an entire clip or an extended bounding box (EBB) within the clip. The EBB may represent the area of interest within the design clip. The flags described above may include any suitable indicia that can be used to identify the dynamic design attributes as described above.
An important aspect of the dynamic design attributes described herein is the calculation formulae, which will be described further now. A dynamic design attribute formula may have input that includes the input layer(s). The input layer(s) may include one or more layers of the design for the wafer. A design clip is extracted for these layer(s), and polygons within the clip are used for attribute calculation. In one embodiment, the information includes one or more layer operators for the one or more formulae, and the one or more layer operators are one or more logical operators applied to polygons of two or more layers in the design. For example, a dynamic design attribute formula may also have input that includes a layer operator, which is the logical operator that is applied between two layers. In another embodiment, the information includes one or more calculations for the one or more formulae performed on polygons resulting from the one or more logical operators, and the results of the one or more calculations are the calculated design attributes. For example, a dynamic design attribute formula may have input that includes a result calculator. When a layer operator is applied to input layers of a design clip, a set of polygons may result. A result calculator is then applied on these polygons to arrive at an attribute value. In this manner, the dynamic design attributes described herein provide the ability to combine data from multiple layers using logical operators and tie it to the attribute definition.
In one example of a dynamic design attribute, a design data file may include M1 and M2 layers (for the metal 1 and metal 2 layers of the wafer, respectively). The user can define a dynamic attribute called “MergeCount.” MergeCount=POLYGONCOUNT (M1 or M2). The dynamic attribute MergeCount calculation is shown in
In one embodiment, the one or more logical operators include one or more of logical AND, OR, XOR, and NOT operators. For example, in the layer logic operations, part of the calculation formula will be a logical expression between layers using logical AND, OR, XOR, and NOT operators.
Also shown in
The dynamic design attribute formula also contains “result calculators.” These calculators are basically the mathematic calculations performed on the set of resultant polygons from layer logic operations. The result of applying the “calculator” is basically the attribute value. In one embodiment, the one or more calculations include one or more of: counting a number of the polygons resulting from the one or more logical operators, counting a number of vertices in each of the polygons resulting from the one or more logical operators, summing an area of all of the polygons resulting from the one or more logical operators, determining a minimum area of all areas of the polygons resulting from the one or more logical operators, and determining a maximum area of all areas of the polygons resulting from the one or more logical operators. For example, the following result calculators may be used for the dynamic design attributes. These calculators can also be extended to support any new calculator created in the future.
a) Polygon count calculator—count the number of polygons in the result
b) Vertex count calculator—count of the number of vertices in each polygon
c) Polygon area calculator—sum of area of all polygons
d) Min area calculator—minimum area of all polygon areas in the result set
e) Max area—maximum area of all polygon areas in the result set
In one embodiment, the calculated design attributes include pattern density of polygons in the design. For example, based on the above, an EBB pattern density attribute in DBB can be represented as: POLYGONAREA (LAYER1 OR LAYER2 OR LAYER3 OR LAYER . . . ). In another embodiment, the calculated design attributes include overlap ratio of polygons in two or more layers of the design. For example, an overlap ratio attribute can be represented as: POLYGONAREA (LAYER1 AND LAYER2 AND LAYER3).
The dynamic design attributes described herein may be used for separating nuisance defects from other defects detected on wafers. For example, the attributes may be used for eliminating nuisance defects in empty areas in which no pattern is printed. This can be achieved by defining a dynamic design attribute performing an OR operation on all layers. In addition, the attributes described herein may be used for identifying dummy related nuisance defects. For example, in the design shown in
The dynamic design attributes described herein may also be used for systematic defects across multiple products. For example, most systematic defects in a foundry are repetitive across multiple products in the same design rule with some variations in the pattern dimension and the patterns surrounding it. Most defect types have common rules like maximum line width, layer combination, spacing between polygons, etc., and these rules can be ported from device to device to monitor or find defect types of interest. Semiconductor IC manufacturers can create these rules, store them in a database, and use them whenever a new device is required to be ramped. Logical operators described above are possible and they can be applied based on different user scenarios. Providing flexibility in software to come up with these definitions on the fly will improve the characterization flexibility for application engineering and also identify new use cases for applying DBB.
Prompting the user for the information for the DBB process may be performed in any suitable manner. For example, a user may provide input to the wafer inspection tool that a wafer inspection recipe is to be run. In one such example, a user may select a wafer inspection recipe from a list of available wafer inspection recipes and select a run option. The list of recipes and the run option may be displayed to the user by any display device coupled to the wafer inspection tool. After the user has selected a wafer inspection recipe to run, a prompt may be displayed to the user on the display device asking if new information for a DBB process for the recipe is to be provided by the user. If the user selects an option for inputting new information, the display device may display the DBB process for the wafer inspection recipe to be run with various information about the binning process such that the user can change, delete, or add information to the existing process.
The method also includes receiving the information from the user, as shown in step 702 of
The method further includes performing inspection of a wafer according to the updated wafer inspection recipe, as shown in step 706 of
The DBB attributes may be calculated in the main user interface (UI) during an inspection run. For example, given a defect location, inspector software has the ability to retrieve design information, or design clips, which is basically the design background around a given defect. The DBB attributes may be used in the DBB process to separate nuisance or sample shape defects of interest (DOI) using design context information. For example, in one embodiment, the binning step separates the defects that are nuisance defects into one or more first groups and the defects that are DOI into one or more second groups. In another embodiment, the binning step shapes a sample of the defects that are DOI by separating different types of the DOI into different groups.
In some embodiments, the information includes one or more layers of the wafer for which the design is used to calculate the design attributes. For example, the design clip information described above may be retrieved for specific layers. In one embodiment, one or more parameters of the DBB process are based on multi-layer design rules. For example, dynamic design attributes can enable better binning or sample shaping defects based on multi-layer design rule. The binning process may also include applying design rule check rules on the clips to better bin or separate defects based on pattern failure criticality. In one such embodiment, the binning step separates the defects into different groups having different criticalities for pattern failure by applying design rule checks on portions of design data for the wafer surrounding locations of the defects detected on the wafer.
The method starts as shown in
The method further includes defining the wafer layout, as shown in step 406. Defining the wafer layout may include defining the layout of dies printed on the wafer in coordinates that are usable by the wafer inspection tool. The user may input the wafer layout using the software described above. In addition, the method includes aligning the wafer, as shown in step 408. For example, the wafer inspection tool may be configured to align the wafer within the wafer inspection tool after receiving an instruction from the user to do so.
The method may also include picking a design data file, as shown in step 410. For example, a user of the wafer inspection tool may use the software described above to select a design data file that is accessible to the wafer inspection tool. The design data file may be stored on the wafer inspection tool or may be accessible from another storage medium such as a fab database that is coupled remotely to the inspection tool. The design data file may include information for one or more layers formed or to be formed on the wafer. In addition, as shown in step 412, the method includes aligning to design. Aligning to design may include aligning the wafer or output (e.g., images) for the wafer to coordinates of the design. Aligning to design may be further performed as described in the patent to Zafar et al. incorporated by reference above.
The method may then continue as shown in
If the user indicates that there is a new dynamic design attribute, the method includes defining the dynamic design attribute name and description, as shown in step 418. This step may include prompting the user to input this information. The method may also include identifying the process layer(s) for the dynamic design attribute, as shown in step 420, which may also be performed by prompting the user to select or input the process layer(s). In addition, the method includes identifying the layer logic operation, as shown in step 422, which may be performed by prompting the user to select or input the layer logic operator. The method further includes defining the formula for the design attribute combining layer(s) and operator, as shown in step 424. This step may be performed by the user or automatically by the wafer inspection tool based on input from the user.
The method may then include launching a design data viewer, as shown in step 426, which may be performed by the client software described above after all of the relevant information for the new design attribute has been received from the user. The design data viewer may display to the user the relevant portion or portions of the design data that will be associated with the new design attribute. For example, the design data viewer may show each of the design clips for each of the layer(s) associated with the new design attribute. In addition, the design data viewer may show the results of the layer logic operation that would be produced for the new design attribute.
The method further includes verifying the attribute result, as shown in step 428. Verifying the attribute result may be performed by prompting the user for an indication of if the attribute result described above is satisfactory or not. The attribute result may be verified visually in the design data viewer on a sample region of the design data. In addition, the method includes saving the attribute definition, as shown in step 430. The attribute definition may be saved when a user selects a save option in the client software. The method also includes determining if more dynamic attributes are to be defined, as shown in step 432. If there are more new dynamic design attributes, the method may return to step 418 and repeat the steps between steps 418 and 432 as many times as needed.
If it is determined or indicated that there are no new dynamic design attributes in step 416, the method includes defining other parameters for DBB, as shown in step 434 of
The method then continues as shown in
The method may also include launching Impact, which is defect classification software commercially available from KLA-Tencor, as shown in step 444. In place of Impact, any other suitable defect classifier software can be launched in step 444. The defect classifier can be launched from the defect review tool or the wafer inspection tool. As shown in step 446, the method includes defining and tuning the classifier using the dynamic attributes. Defining and tuning the classifier may include altering any one or more parameters of the classifier for use in the wafer inspection recipe. For example, defining and tuning the classifier may include defining and tuning a decision tree that is used in the classifier. The method also includes saving the classifier, as shown in step 448. The classifier may be stored in any suitable manner and in any suitable format. The classifier may also be stored in any of the storage media described herein (e.g., a storage medium included in the wafer inspection tool or a fab database).
The method may further include linking the classifier to the wafer inspection recipe, as shown in step 450. This step may be performed in any suitable manner. For example, a link to the classifier may be included in the wafer inspection recipe that was stored in step 436. The method also includes verifying the results, as shown in step 452, which may be performed in any suitable manner. In addition, the method includes finalizing the recipe for production, as shown in step 454, which may also be performed in any suitable manner.
Each of the embodiments of the methods described above may include any other step(s) of any other method(s) described herein. Furthermore, each of the embodiments of the methods described above may be performed by any of the systems described herein.
All of the methods described herein may include storing results of one or more steps of the method embodiments in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. The results may include any of the results described herein and may be stored in any manner known in the art. The storage medium may include any storage medium described herein or any other suitable storage medium known in the art. After the results have been stored, the results can be accessed in the storage medium and used by any of the method or system embodiments described herein, formatted for display to a user, used by another software module, method, or system, etc. For example, after the method detects the defects, the method may include storing information about the detected defects in a storage medium.
An additional embodiment relates to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions executable on a computer system of a wafer inspection tool for performing a computer-implemented method for wafer inspection. One such embodiment is shown in
Program instructions 502 implementing methods such as those described herein may be stored on computer-readable medium 500. The computer-readable medium may be a storage medium such as a magnetic or optical disk, a magnetic tape, or any other suitable non-transitory computer-readable medium known in the art.
The program instructions may be implemented in any of various ways, including procedure-based techniques, component-based techniques, and/or object-oriented techniques, among others. For example, the program instructions may be implemented using ActiveX controls, C++ objects, JavaBeans, Microsoft Foundation Classes (“MFC”), or other technologies or methodologies, as desired.
The computer system may take various forms, including a personal computer system, image computer, mainframe computer system, workstation, network appliance, Internet appliance, or other device. In general, the term “computer system” may be broadly defined to encompass any device having one or more processors, which executes instructions from a memory medium. The computer system may also include any suitable processor known in the art such as a parallel processor. In addition, the computer system may include a computer platform with high speed processing and software, either as a standalone or a networked tool.
Another embodiment relates to a wafer inspection tool. One embodiment of such a tool is shown in
As shown in
Light source 604, beam splitter 606, and refractive optical element 608 may, therefore, form an illumination channel for the optical subsystem. The illumination channel may include any other suitable elements (not shown in
The optical subsystem may be configured to scan the light over the wafer in any suitable manner.
Light reflected from wafer 610 due to illumination may be collected by refractive optical element 608 and directed through beam splitter 606 to detector 612. Therefore, the refractive optical element, beam splitter, and detector may form a detection channel of the optical subsystem. The detector may include any suitable imaging detector known in the art such as a charge coupled device (CCD). This detection channel may also include one or more additional components (not shown in
As described above, the detector included in the optical subsystem may be configured to detect light reflected from the wafer. Therefore, the detection channel included in the optical subsystem may be configured as a bright field (BF) channel. However, the optical subsystem may include one or more detection channels (not shown) that may be used to detect light scattered from the wafer due to illumination of the wafer. In addition, one or more parameters of the detection channel shown in
The wafer inspection tool also includes a computer subsystem coupled to the optical subsystem. For example, the computer subsystem may be coupled to a detector of the optical subsystem. In one such example, as shown in
Computer system 614 is configured for, at run time of a wafer inspection recipe, prompting a user of the wafer inspection tool on which the wafer inspection recipe is performed for information for a DBB process. The information includes one or more formulae for calculating design attributes from a design for the wafer. The design attributes are used to bin the defects in the DBB process. The computer system is also configured for receiving information from the user. In addition, the computer system is configured for updating the wafer inspection recipe based on the received information. The computer system is further configured for detecting defects on the wafer based on the output and binning the defects detected on the wafer according to the DBB process in the updated wafer inspection recipe. Each of these steps may be performed as described further herein. In addition, the computer system may be configured to perform any other step(s) described herein. The wafer inspection tool shown in
It is noted that
Further modifications and alternative embodiments of various aspects of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art in view of this description. For example, methods and systems for dynamic design attributes for wafer inspection are provided. Accordingly, this description is to be construed as illustrative only and is for the purpose of teaching those skilled in the art the general manner of carrying out the invention. It is to be understood that the forms of the invention shown and described herein are to be taken as the presently preferred embodiments. Elements and materials may be substituted for those illustrated and described herein, parts and processes may be reversed, and certain features of the invention may be utilized independently, all as would be apparent to one skilled in the art after having the benefit of this description of the invention. Changes may be made in the elements described herein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as described in the following claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3495269 | Mutschler et al. | Feb 1970 | A |
3496352 | Jugle | Feb 1970 | A |
3909602 | Micka | Sep 1975 | A |
4015203 | Verkuil | Mar 1977 | A |
4247203 | Levy et al. | Jan 1981 | A |
4347001 | Levy et al. | Aug 1982 | A |
4378159 | Galbraith | Mar 1983 | A |
4448532 | Joseph et al. | May 1984 | A |
4475122 | Green | Oct 1984 | A |
4532650 | Wihl et al. | Jul 1985 | A |
4555798 | Broadbent, Jr. et al. | Nov 1985 | A |
4578810 | MacFarlane et al. | Mar 1986 | A |
4579455 | Levy et al. | Apr 1986 | A |
4595289 | Feldman et al. | Jun 1986 | A |
4599558 | Castellano, Jr. et al. | Jul 1986 | A |
4633504 | Wihl | Dec 1986 | A |
4641353 | Kobayashi | Feb 1987 | A |
4641967 | Pecen | Feb 1987 | A |
4734721 | Boyer et al. | Mar 1988 | A |
4748327 | Shinozaki et al. | May 1988 | A |
4758094 | Wihl et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
4766324 | Saadat et al. | Aug 1988 | A |
4799175 | Sano et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4805123 | Specht et al. | Feb 1989 | A |
4812756 | Curtis et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4814829 | Kosugi et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4817123 | Sones et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4845558 | Tsai et al. | Jul 1989 | A |
4877326 | Chadwick et al. | Oct 1989 | A |
4926489 | Danielson et al. | May 1990 | A |
4928313 | Leonard et al. | May 1990 | A |
5046109 | Fujimori et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
5124927 | Hopewell et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
5189481 | Jann et al. | Feb 1993 | A |
5355212 | Wells et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5444480 | Sumita | Aug 1995 | A |
5453844 | George et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5481624 | Kamon | Jan 1996 | A |
5485091 | Verkuil | Jan 1996 | A |
5497381 | O'Donoghue et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5528153 | Taylor et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5544256 | Brecher et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5563702 | Emery et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5572598 | Wihl et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5578821 | Meisberger et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5594247 | Verkuil et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5608538 | Edgar et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5619548 | Koppel | Apr 1997 | A |
5621519 | Frost et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5644223 | Verkuil | Jul 1997 | A |
5650731 | Fung et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5661408 | Kamieniecki et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5689614 | Gronet et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5694478 | Braier et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5696835 | Hennessey et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5703969 | Hennessey et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5716889 | Tsuji et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5737072 | Emery et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5742658 | Tiffin et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5754678 | Hawthorne et al. | May 1998 | A |
5767691 | Verkuil | Jun 1998 | A |
5767693 | Verkuil | Jun 1998 | A |
5771317 | Edgar | Jun 1998 | A |
5773989 | Edelman et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5774179 | Chevrette et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5795685 | Liebmann et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5822218 | Moosa et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5831865 | Berezin et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5834941 | Verkuil | Nov 1998 | A |
5852232 | Samsavar et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5866806 | Samsavar et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5874733 | Silver et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5884242 | Meier et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5889593 | Bareket | Mar 1999 | A |
5917332 | Chen et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5932377 | Ferguson et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5940458 | Suk | Aug 1999 | A |
5948972 | Samsavar et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5955661 | Samsavar et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5965306 | Mansfield et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5978501 | Badger et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5980187 | Verhovsky | Nov 1999 | A |
5986263 | Hiroi et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5991699 | Kulkarni et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5999003 | Steffan et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6011404 | Ma et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6014461 | Hennessey et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6040911 | Nozaki et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6040912 | Zika et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6052478 | Wihl et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6060709 | Verkuil et al. | May 2000 | A |
6072320 | Verkuil | Jun 2000 | A |
6076465 | Vacca et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6078738 | Garza et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6091257 | Verkuil et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6091846 | Lin et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6097196 | Verkuil et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6097887 | Hardikar et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6104206 | Verkuil | Aug 2000 | A |
6104835 | Han | Aug 2000 | A |
6117598 | Imai | Sep 2000 | A |
6121783 | Horner et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6122017 | Taubman | Sep 2000 | A |
6122046 | Almogy | Sep 2000 | A |
6137570 | Chuang et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6141038 | Young et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6146627 | Muller et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6171737 | Phan et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6175645 | Elyasaf et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6184929 | Noda et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6184976 | Park et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6191605 | Miller et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6201999 | Jevtic | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6202029 | Verkuil et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6205239 | Lin et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6215551 | Nikoonahad et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6224638 | Jevtic et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6233719 | Hardikar et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6246787 | Hennessey et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6248485 | Cuthbert | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6248486 | Dirksen et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6259960 | Inokuchi | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6266437 | Eichel et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6267005 | Samsavar et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6268093 | Kenan et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6272236 | Pierrat et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6282309 | Emery | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6292582 | Lin et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6295374 | Robinson et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6324298 | O'Dell et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6336082 | Nguyen et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6344640 | Rhoads | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6363166 | Wihl et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6366687 | Aloni et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6373975 | Bula et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6388747 | Nara et al. | May 2002 | B2 |
6393602 | Atchison et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6407373 | Dotan | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6415421 | Anderson et al. | Jul 2002 | B2 |
6427024 | Bishop | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6445199 | Satya et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6451690 | Matsumoto et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6459520 | Takayama | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6466314 | Lehman | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6466315 | Karpol et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6470489 | Chang et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6483938 | Hennessey et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6513151 | Erhardt et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6526164 | Mansfield et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6529621 | Glasser et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6535628 | Smargiassi et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6539106 | Gallarda et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6553329 | Balachandran | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6569691 | Jastrzebski et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6581193 | McGhee et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6593748 | Halliyal et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6597193 | Lagowski et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6602728 | Liebmann et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6608681 | Tanaka et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6614520 | Bareket et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6631511 | Haffner et al. | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6636301 | Kvamme et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6642066 | Halliyal et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6658640 | Weed | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6665065 | Phan et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6670082 | Liu et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6680621 | Savtchouk | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6691052 | Maurer | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6701004 | Shykind et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6718526 | Eldredge et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6721695 | Chen et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6734696 | Horner et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6738954 | Allen et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6748103 | Glasser et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6751519 | Satya et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6753954 | Chen | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6757645 | Chang et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6759655 | Nara et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6771806 | Satya et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6775818 | Taravade et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6777147 | Fonseca et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6777676 | Wang et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6778695 | Schellenberg et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6779159 | Yokoyama et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6784446 | Phan et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6788400 | Chen | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6789032 | Barbour et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6803554 | Ye et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6806456 | Ye et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6807503 | Ye et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6813572 | Satya et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6820028 | Ye et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6828542 | Ye et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6842225 | Irie et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6859746 | Stirton | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6879403 | Freifeld | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6879924 | Ye et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6882745 | Brankner et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6884984 | Ye et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6886153 | Bevis | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6892156 | Ye et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6902855 | Peterson et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6906305 | Pease et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6918101 | Satya et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6919957 | Nikoonahad et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6937753 | O'Dell et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6948141 | Satya et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6959255 | Ye et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6966047 | Glasser | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6969837 | Ye et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6969864 | Ye et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6983060 | Martinent-Catalot et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
6988045 | Purdy | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6990385 | Smith et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
7003755 | Pang et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7003758 | Ye et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7012438 | Miller et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7026615 | Takane et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7027143 | Stokowski et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7030966 | Hansen | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7030997 | Neureuther et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7053355 | Ye et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7061625 | Hwang et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7071833 | Nagano et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7103484 | Shi et al. | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7106895 | Goldberg et al. | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7107517 | Suzuki et al. | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7107571 | Chang et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7111277 | Ye et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7114143 | Hanson et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7114145 | Ye et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7117477 | Ye et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7117478 | Ye et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7120285 | Spence | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7120895 | Ye et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7123356 | Stokowski et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7124386 | Smith et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7133070 | Wheeler | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7133548 | Kenan et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7135344 | Nehmadi et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7136143 | Smith | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7152215 | Smith et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7162071 | Hung et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7170593 | Honda et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7171334 | Gassner | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7174520 | White et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7194709 | Brankner | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7207017 | Tabery et al. | Apr 2007 | B1 |
7231628 | Pack et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7236847 | Marella | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7271891 | Xiong et al. | Sep 2007 | B1 |
7379175 | Stokowski et al. | May 2008 | B1 |
7383156 | Matsusita et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7386839 | Golender et al. | Jun 2008 | B1 |
7388979 | Sakai et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7418124 | Peterson et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7424145 | Horie et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7440093 | Xiong et al. | Oct 2008 | B1 |
7558419 | Ye et al. | Jul 2009 | B1 |
7570796 | Zafar et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7676077 | Kulkarni et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7683319 | Makino et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7738093 | Alles et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7739064 | Ryker et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7752584 | Yang | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7760929 | Orbon et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7769225 | Kekare et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7774153 | Smith | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7877722 | Duffy et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7890917 | Young et al. | Feb 2011 | B1 |
7904845 | Fouquet et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7968859 | Young et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
8041103 | Kulkarni et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8041106 | Pak et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8073240 | Fischer et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8112241 | Xiong | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8126255 | Bhaskar et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8204297 | Xiong et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
8216773 | Delgado | Jul 2012 | B1 |
8223327 | Chen et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8255172 | Auerbach | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8269960 | Reich et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8605275 | Chen et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
20010017694 | Oomori et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010019625 | Kenan et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010022858 | Komiya et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010043735 | Smargiassi et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020010560 | Balachandran | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020019729 | Chang et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020026626 | Randall et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020033449 | Nakasuji et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020035461 | Chang et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020035641 | Kurose et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020035717 | Matsuoka | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020054291 | Tsai et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020088951 | Chen | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020090746 | Xu et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020134936 | Matsui et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020144230 | Rittman | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020145734 | Watkins et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020164065 | Cai et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020168099 | Noy | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020176096 | Sentoku et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020181756 | Shibuya et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020186878 | Hoon et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020192578 | Tanaka et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030004699 | Choi et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030014146 | Fujii et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030017664 | Pnueli et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030022401 | Hamamatsu et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030033046 | Yoshitake et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030048458 | Mieher et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030048939 | Lehman | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030057971 | Nishiyama et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030076989 | Maayah et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030082463 | Laidig et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030086081 | Lehman | May 2003 | A1 |
20030094572 | Matsui et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030098805 | Bizjak et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030128870 | Pease et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030138138 | Vacca et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030138978 | Tanaka et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030169916 | Hayashi et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030173516 | Takane et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030192015 | Liu | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030207475 | Nakasuji et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030223639 | Shlain et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030226951 | Ye et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030227620 | Yokoyama et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030228050 | Geshel et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030228714 | Smith et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030229410 | Smith et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030229412 | White et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030229868 | White et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030229875 | Smith et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030229880 | White et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030229881 | White et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030237064 | White et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040030430 | Matsuoka | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040032908 | Hagai et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040049722 | Matsushita | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040052411 | Qian et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040057611 | Lee et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040066506 | Elichai et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040091142 | Peterson et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040094762 | Hess et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040098216 | Ye et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040102934 | Chang | May 2004 | A1 |
20040107412 | Pack et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040119036 | Ye et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040120569 | Hung et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040133369 | Pack et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040147121 | Nakagaki et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040174506 | Smith | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040179738 | Dai et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040199885 | Lu et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040223639 | Sato et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040228515 | Okabe et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040234120 | Honda et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040243320 | Chang et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040246476 | Bevis et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040254752 | Wisniewski et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050004774 | Volk et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050008218 | O'Dell et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050010890 | Nehmadi et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050013474 | Sim | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050062962 | Fairley et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050069217 | Mukherjee | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050117796 | Matsui et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050132306 | Smith et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050141764 | Tohyama et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050166174 | Ye et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050184252 | Ogawa et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050190957 | Cai et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050198602 | Brankner et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050249318 | Minemura | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060000964 | Ye et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060036979 | Zurbrick et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060038986 | Honda et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060048089 | Schwarzband | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060051682 | Hess et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060062445 | Verma et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060066339 | Rajski et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060078192 | Oh | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060082763 | Teh et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060083135 | Minemura | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060159333 | Ishikawa | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060161452 | Hess | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060193506 | Dorphan et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060193507 | Sali et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060236294 | Saidin et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060236297 | Melvin, III et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060239536 | Shibuya et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060265145 | Huet et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060266243 | Percin et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060269120 | Nehmadi et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060273242 | Hunsche et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060273266 | Preil et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060277520 | Gennari | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060291714 | Wu et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060292463 | Best et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070002322 | Borodovsky et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070011628 | Ouali et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070013901 | Kim et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070019171 | Smith | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070019856 | Furman et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070031745 | Ye et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070032896 | Ye et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070035322 | Kang et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070035712 | Gassner et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070035728 | Kekare et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070052963 | Orbon et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070064995 | Oaki et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070133860 | Lin et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070156379 | Kulkarni et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070230770 | Kulkarni et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070248257 | Bruce et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070280527 | Almogy et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070288219 | Zafar | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080013083 | Kirk et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080015802 | Urano et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080016481 | Matsuoka et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080018887 | Chen et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080049994 | Rognin et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080058977 | Honda | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080072207 | Verma et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080081385 | Marella et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080163140 | Fouquet et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080167829 | Park et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080250384 | Duffy | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080295047 | Nehmadi et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080295048 | Nehmadi et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080304056 | Alles et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090024967 | Su et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090037134 | Kulkarni et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090041332 | Bhaskar et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090043527 | Park et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090055783 | Florence | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090067703 | Lin et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090080759 | Bhaskar et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090210183 | Rajski et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090257645 | Chen et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090284733 | Wallingford et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090290782 | Regensburger | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090299681 | Chen et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090310864 | Takagi et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090323052 | Silberstein et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100076699 | Auerbach | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100142800 | Pak et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100146338 | Schalick et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100150429 | Jau et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100188657 | Chen et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100215247 | Kitamura | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100226562 | Wu et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20110013825 | Shibuya et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110052040 | Kuan | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110129142 | Takahashi et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110184662 | Badger et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110188733 | Bardos et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110224932 | Huet et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110251713 | Teshima et al. | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110276935 | Fouquet et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110311126 | Sakai et al. | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20110320149 | Lee | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120229618 | Urano et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120308112 | Hu et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120316855 | Park | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120319246 | Tan et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130009989 | Chen et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130027196 | Yankun et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130064442 | Chang et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130129189 | Wu et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130236084 | Li et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130336575 | Dalla-Torre et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140002632 | Lin et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140050389 | Mahadevan et al. | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140185919 | Lang et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140193065 | Chu et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140219544 | Wu et al. | Aug 2014 | A1 |
20140241610 | Duffy | Aug 2014 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1339140 | Mar 2002 | CN |
1398348 | Feb 2003 | CN |
1646896 | Jul 2005 | CN |
101275920 | Oct 2008 | CN |
0032197 | Jul 1981 | EP |
0370322 | May 1990 | EP |
1061358 | Dec 2000 | EP |
1061571 | Dec 2000 | EP |
1065567 | Jan 2001 | EP |
1066925 | Jan 2001 | EP |
1069609 | Jan 2001 | EP |
1093017 | Apr 2001 | EP |
1329771 | Jul 2003 | EP |
1480034 | Nov 2004 | EP |
1696270 | Aug 2006 | EP |
7-159337 | Jun 1995 | JP |
2002-071575 | Mar 2002 | JP |
2002-365235 | Dec 2002 | JP |
2003-215060 | Jul 2003 | JP |
2004-045066 | Feb 2004 | JP |
2005-283326 | Oct 2005 | JP |
2007-234798 | Sep 2007 | JP |
2009-122046 | Jun 2009 | JP |
2010-256242 | Nov 2010 | JP |
2012-225768 | Nov 2012 | JP |
10-2001-0007394 | Jan 2001 | KR |
10-2001-0037026 | May 2001 | KR |
10-2001-0101697 | Nov 2001 | KR |
10-2003-0055848 | Jul 2003 | KR |
10-2006-0075691 | Jul 2005 | KR |
10-2005-0092053 | Sep 2005 | KR |
10-2006-0124514 | Dec 2006 | KR |
10-0696276 | Mar 2007 | KR |
10-2010-0061018 | Jun 2010 | KR |
10-2012-0068128 | Jun 2012 | KR |
201128183 | Aug 2011 | TW |
1998057358 | Dec 1998 | WO |
1999022310 | May 1999 | WO |
1999025004 | May 1999 | WO |
1999059200 | May 1999 | WO |
1999038002 | Jul 1999 | WO |
1999041434 | Aug 1999 | WO |
2000003234 | Jan 2000 | WO |
2000036525 | Jun 2000 | WO |
2000055799 | Sep 2000 | WO |
2000068884 | Nov 2000 | WO |
2000070332 | Nov 2000 | WO |
2001009566 | Feb 2001 | WO |
2001040145 | Jun 2001 | WO |
2003104921 | Dec 2003 | WO |
2004027684 | Apr 2004 | WO |
2004097903 | Nov 2004 | WO |
2006012388 | Feb 2006 | WO |
2006063268 | Jun 2006 | WO |
2009152046 | Sep 2009 | WO |
2010093733 | Aug 2010 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Gu et al., “Lossless Compression Algorithms for Hierarchical IC Layout,” IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, vol. 21, No. 2, May 2008, pp. 285-296. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2014/033225 dated Jul. 30, 2014. |
U.S. Appl. No. 60/681,095, filed May 13, 2005 by Nehmadi et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 60/684,360, filed May 24, 2005 by Nehmadi et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/652,377, filed Oct. 15, 2012 by Wu et al. |
Allan et al., “Critical Area Extraction for Soft Fault Estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, vol. 11, No. 1, Feb. 1998. |
Barty et al., “Aerial Image Microscopes for the inspection of defects in EUV masks,” Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 4889, 2002, pp. 1073-1084. |
Budd et al., “A New Mask Evaluation Tool, the Microlithography Simulation Microscope Aerial Image Measurement System,” SPIE vol. 2197, 1994, pp. 530-540. |
Cai et al., “Enhanced Dispositioning of Reticle Defects Using the Virtual Stepper With Automoated Defect Severity Scoring,” Proceedings of the SPIE, vol. 4409, Jan. 2001, pp. 467-478. |
Comizzoli, “Uses of Corona Discharges in the Semiconductor Industry,” J. Electrochem. Soc., 1987, pp. 424-429. |
Contactless Electrical Equivalent Oxide Thickness Measurement, IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 29, No. 10, 1987, pp. 4622-4623. |
Contactless Photovoltage vs. Bias Method for Determining Flat-Band Voltage, IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 32, vol. 9A, 1990, pp. 14-17. |
Cosway et al., “Manufacturing Implementation of Corona Oxide Silicon (COS) Systems for Diffusion Furnace Contamination Monitoring,” 1997 IEEE/SEMI Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference, pp. 98-102. |
Diebold et al., “Characterization and produiction metrology of thin transistor gate oxide films,” Materials Science in Semiconductor Processing 2, 1999, pp. 103-147. |
Dirksen et al., “Impact of high order aberrations on the performance of the aberration monitor,” Proc. of SPIE vol. 4000, Mar. 2000, pp. 9-17. |
Dirksen et al., “Novel aberration monitor for optical lithography,” Proc. of SPIE vol. 3679, Jul. 1999, pp. 77-86. |
Garcia et al., “New Die to Database Inspection Algorithm for Inspection of 90-nm Node Reticles,” Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 5130, 2003, pp. 364-374. |
Granik et al., “Sub-resolution process windows and yield estimation technique based on detailed full-chip CD simulation,” Mentor Graphics, Sep. 2000, 5 pages. |
Hess et al., “A Novel Approach: High Resolution Inspection with Wafer Plane Defect Detection,” Proceedings of SPIE—International Society for Optical Engineering; Photomask and Next-Generation Lithography Mask Technology 2008, vol. 7028, 2008. |
Huang et al., “Process Window Impact of Progressive Mask Defects, Its Inspection and Disposition Techniques (go/no-go criteria) Via a Lithographic Detector,” Proceedings of SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering; 25th Annual Bacus Symposium on Photomask Technology 2005, vol. 5992, No. 1, 2005, p. 6. |
Huang et al., “Using Design Based Binning to Improve Defect Excursion Control for 45nm Production,” IEEE, International Symposium on Semiconductor Manufacturing, Oct. 2007, pp. 1-3. |
Hung et al., Metrology Study of Sub 20 Angstrom oxynitride by Corona-Oxide-Silicon (COS) and Conventional C-V Approaches, 2002, Mat. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc., vol. 716, pp. 119-124. |
Karklin et al., “Automatic Defect Severity Scoring for 193 nm Reticle Defect Inspection,” Proceedings of SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2001, vol. 4346, No. 2, pp. 898-906. |
Lo et al., “Identifying Process Window Marginalities of Reticle Designs for 0.15/0.13 μm Technologies,” Proceedings of SPIE vol. 5130, 2003, pp. 829-837. |
Lorusso et al. “Advanced DFM Applns. Using design-based metrology on CDSEM,” SPIE vol. 6152, Mar. 27, 2006. |
Lu et al., “Application of Simulation Based Defect Printability Analysis for Mask Qualification Control,” Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 5038, 2003, pp. 33-40. |
Mack, “Lithographic Simulation: A Review,” Proceedings of SPIE vol. 4440, 2001, pp. 59-72. |
Martino et al., “Application of the Aerial Image Measurement System (AIMS(TM)) to the Analysis of Binary Mask Imaging and Resolution Enhancement Techniques,” SPIE vol. 2197, 1994, pp. 573-584. |
Miller, “A New Approach for Measuring Oxide Thickness,” Semiconductor International, Jul. 1995, pp. 147-148. |
Nagpal et al., “Wafer Plane Inspection for Advanced Reticle Defects,” Proceedings of SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering; Photomask and Next-Generation Lithography Mask Technology. vol. 7028, 2008. |
Numerical Recipes in C. The Art of Scientific Computing, 2nd Ed.,© Cambridge University Press 1988, 1992, p. 683. |
O'Gorman et al., “Subpixel Registration Using a Concentric Ring Fiducial,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Pattern Recognition, vol. ii, Jun. 16, 1990, pp. 249-253. |
Otsu, “A Threshold Selection Method from Gray-Level Histograms,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. SMC-9, No. 1, Jan. 1979, pp. 62-66. |
Pang et al., “Simulation-based Defect Printability Analysis on Alternating Phase Shifting Masks for 193 nm Lithography,” Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 4889, 2002, pp. 947-954. |
Pettibone et al., “Wafer Printability Simulation Accuracy Based on UV Optical Inspection Images of Reticle Defects,” Proceedings of SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering 1999 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, vol. 3677, No. II, 1999, pp. 711-720. |
Phan et al., “Comparison of Binary Mask Defect Printability Analysis Using Virtual Stepper System and Aerial Image Microscope System,” Proceedings of SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering 1999 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, vol. 3873, 1999, pp. 681-692. |
Sahouria et al., “Full-chip Process Simulation for Silicon DRC,” Mentor Graphics, Mar. 2000, 6 pages. |
Sato et al., “Defect Criticality Index (DCI): A new methodology to significantly improve DOI sampling rate in a 45nm production environment,” Metrology, Inspection, and Process Control for Microlithography XXII, Proc. of SPIE vol. 6922, 692213 (2008), pp. 1-9. |
Schroder et al., Corona-Oxide-Semiconductor Device Characterization, 1998, Solid-State Electronics, vol. 42, No. 4, pp. 505-512. |
Schroder, “Surface voltage and surface photovoltage: history, theory and applications,” Measurement Science and Technology, vol. 12, 2001, pp. R16-R31. |
Schroder, Contactless Surface Charge Semiconductor Characterization, Apr. 2002, Materials Science and Engineering B, vol. 91-92, pp. 196-228. |
Schurz et al., “Simulation Study of Reticle Enhancement Technology Applications for 157 nm Lithography,” SPIE vol. 4562, 2002, pp. 902-913. |
Svidenko et al. “Dynamic Defect-Limited Yield Prediction by Criticality Factor,” ISSM Paper: YE-O-157, 2007. |
Tang et al., “Analyzing Volume Diagnosis Results with Statistical Learning for Yield Improvement” 12th IEEE European Test Symposium, Freiburg 2007, IEEE European, May 20-24, 2007, pp. 145-150. |
Verkuil et al., “A Contactless Alternative to MOS Charge Measurements by Means of a Corona-Oxide-Semiconductor (COS) Technique,”Electrochem. Soc. Extended Abstracts, 1988, vol. 88-1, No. 169, pp. 261-262. |
Verkuil, “Rapid Contactless Method for Measuring Fixed Oxide Charge Associated with Silicon Processing,” IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, vol. 24, No. 6, 1981, pp. 3048-3053. |
Volk et al. “Investigation of Reticle Defect Formation at DUV Lithography,” 2002, BACUS Symposium on Photomask Technology. |
Volk et al. “Investigation of Reticle Defect Formation at DUV Lithography,” 2003, IEEE/SEMI Advanced Manufacturing Conference, pp. 29-35. |
Volk et al., “Investigation of Smart Inspection of Critical Layer Reticles using Additional Designer Data to Determine Defect Significance,” Proceedings of SPIE vol. 5256, 2003, pp. 489-499. |
Weinberg, “Tunneling of Electrons from Si into Thermally Grown SiO2,” Solid-State Electronics, 1977, vol. 20, pp. 11-18. |
Weinzierl et al., “Non-Contact Corona-Based Process Control Measurements: Where We've Been, Where We're Headed,” Electrochemical Society Proceedings, Oct. 1999, vol. 99-16, pp. 342-350. |
Yan et al., “Printability of Pellicle Defects in DUV 0.5 um Lithography,” SPIE vol. 1604, 1991, pp. 106-117. |
Guo et al., “License Plate Localization and Character Segmentation with Feedback Self-Learning and Hybrid Binarization Techniques,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 57, No. 3, May 2008, pp. 1417-1424. |
Liu, “Robust Image Segmentation Using Local Median,” Proceedings of the 3rd Canadian Conference on Computer and Robot Vision (CRV'06) 0-7695-2542-3/06, 2006 IEEE, 7 pages total. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140303921 A1 | Oct 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61809676 | Apr 2013 | US | |
61810163 | Apr 2013 | US |