The present invention relates generally to semiconductor manufacture. More particularly, the present invention relates to techniques for manufacturing semiconductors by integrating fault detection concepts with run-to-run control.
In typical semiconductor manufacturing processes, semiconductor wafers, or simply wafers, are advanced through a number of stations within what is referred to as a fab. At each location in this assembly line-like process, processing equipment or tools perform processing operations to modify the wafers. For example, one tool may add various layers onto the wafers (e.g., a deposition tool) while another may modify the layers (e.g., etching tools) to form a completed semiconductor product.
As they are moved through the assembly line, periodic quality checks are performed on the wafers. The quality checks typically include measuring widths of microscopic lines and film thicknesses on the wafer for aberrations. With many of the quality checks, the measurements can only be made after the wafers have undergone processing operations subsequent to those responsible for producing the aberrations. Furthermore, a period of time and a number of process steps typically pass between the introduction of the aberration and their detection. Thus, a number of processes may be performed on a wafer even after an aberration has been introduced. Similarly, a tool may continue processing wafers even after it has begun introducing aberrations. In either case, a number of wafers must be scrapped.
Conventional techniques are known for addressing some of these problems. Two examples include run-to-run control and fault detection.
Generally speaking, run-to-run control addresses process output drifts (i.e., drifts from process targets) by using data from outgoing and incoming wafers with modeling techniques to adjust process parameters. These drifts relate to slight changes in the way the tool produces output due to normal tool use. For example, with chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) processes, polishing pads used to reduce film thickness wear out over time. As a result, worn polishing pads inevitably require more time than new pads to produce a desired thickness. Run-to-run control may be used to address these types of problems by adjusting a process parameter such as polishing time to account for issues such as wear on a polishing pad.
Run-to-run control uses metrology data taken at one or more process steps to adjust process recipes (i.e., a set of predefined process parameters required to effectuate a processing outcome) on a run-to-run basis. A run may constitute one or more steps of a manufacturing process of a wafer. It may include a batch of wafer lots, a single lot or even a single wafer, depending on the particular needs and capabilities of the process step and the fab. In general, run-to-run control uses the data measured at each process or tool to keep wafer properties (e.g., film thickness, uniformity, etc.) close to their nominal values by making slight modifications or adjustments to the setpoints in each tool's recipe. In typical cases, data taken during or immediately after a process step on a particular tool is fed back to adjust the recipe for the following run. Similarly, data may be sent to the next tool to adjust downstream recipes. In this manner, run-to-run control may be used to address process output drifts.
While run-to-run control may be used to address process drifts, it is inadequate for situations where a tool is simply no longer capable of producing an acceptable product, regardless of adjustments made to the recipe setpoints. Similarly, run-to run control does not address situations where a wafer contains a flaw. These situations are termed tool or wafer property faults. A tool that has experienced a fault or failure condition causes the introduction of aberrations or flaws into the wafers. Similarly, a wafer property fault indicates a condition on the wafer that is beyond repair. A number of methods may be used to detect these conditions. For example, a significant drop in temperature from the temperature required to perform the given process operation may signify a fault. Another example of a fault condition may be a spike in a flow rate of a process material. In these instances, run-to-run controllers treat the fault as a drift and attempt to remedy the situation by adjusting the tool's recipe even though the adjustments simply are not capable of addressing the problem. Thus, instead of returning the tool to acceptable operating conditions, the tool continues to introduce aberrations in subsequent wafers or continues processing a flawed wafer thereby resulting in additional waste.
Fault detection, in contrast to run-to-run control, monitors process equipment parameters and wafer attributes to detect tool and wafer property failure or fault conditions. Fault detection systems collect process data and analyze the data for an abnormality or fault during the operation of the process equipment. If a fault is detected, the fault detection system may have various methods of reacting. For example, the system may notify an equipment operator or even terminate execution of process equipment.
While fault detection is adequate for dealing with tool or wafer property failure situations, it does nothing to address process drifts. Thus, until a tool or process fails, fault detection systems remain silent and allow the tools to drift from optimal operating conditions.
As such, it is apparent that a need exists for increasingly efficient techniques for processing wafers. More particularly, what is needed is a system that is capable of addressing both process drifts and fault conditions.
The present invention addresses the problems described above by integrating run-to-run and fault detection techniques. Specifically, semiconductor wafers and other items are processed in conjunction with a manufacturing execution system using a run-to-run controller and a fault detection system. Initially, and in accordance with one more embodiments of the present invention, a recipe is received from the manufacturing execution system by the run-to-run controller for controlling a tool. This recipe includes a setpoint for obtaining one or more target wafer properties. From there, processing of the wafers is monitored by measuring processing attributes including fault conditions and wafer properties using the fault detection system and/or a sensor. These processing attributes are forwarded from the fault detection system to the run-to-run controller. As a result, setpoints of the recipe may be modified by the run-to-run controller according to the processing attributes to maintain the target wafer properties, except in cases when a fault condition is detected by the fault detection system.
In another (or parallel) embodiment, wafers are also processed according to a recipe. This recipe includes at least one setpoint for obtaining one or more target wafer properties. This technique also includes measuring wafer properties, and detecting conditions indicative of a fault condition (e.g., either wafer or equipment faults). If a fault condition is not detected, the setpoint of the recipe is modified according to the measured wafer properties to maintain the target wafer properties. In some embodiments, if a fault condition is detected, the process is terminated.
In other (or parallel) embodiments, wafer properties may be measured before execution of processing. In still yet other (or parallel) embodiments, two or more setpoints of the recipe, which may include temperature, pressure, power, processing time, lift position and flow rate of a material, are modified.
In other (or parallel) embodiments, fault detection models may be used to define a range of conditions indicative of a fault condition. In these embodiments, the fault detection models may be modified to incorporate, as parameters, setpoints of a recipe modified by a run-to-run controller.
Various objects, features, and advantages of the present invention can be more fully appreciated as the same become better understood with reference to the following detailed description of the present invention when considered in connection with the accompanying drawings, in which:
In accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention, a technique is provided for processing semiconductor wafers in conjunction with a manufacturing execution system using a run-to-run controller and a fault detection system. More particularly, the manufacturing execution system transfers a recipe to the run-to-run controller for controlling a tool. This recipe includes a setpoint for obtaining one or more target wafer properties. In addition, the fault detection system monitors processing of the wafers by measuring processing attributes including fault conditions and wafer properties. The run-to-run controller modifies the setpoints of the recipe according to the processing attributes (received from the fault detection system as well as e.g., other information gathering sources) to maintain the target wafer properties, except in cases when a fault condition is detected by the fault detection system.
In addition to run-to-run controller 120 and fault detection system 110, one or more embodiments of the present invention contemplate that any number of metrology tools or sensors 190 may be positioned upstream or downstream from each of the one or more tools 150 for measuring wafer properties immediately before or after processing by the one or more tools 150. Metrology tools 190, if utilized, may be linked to the remainder of system 100 via network 130. Similarly, input wafer properties may also be received from an upstream or feed-forward tool (e.g., a tool positioned upstream from another tool). Thus, the properties may be measured by sensors at another tool at the end of or during a previous manufacturing step and forwarded for use in the instant tool. Examples of such metrology tools 190 include the RS-75™ offered by KLA-Tencor of San Jose, Calif.
The one or more tools 150 may be any number of different types of tools utilized for processing a wafer to produce a desired output. Examples include CMP, lithography, deposition, or etching tools, and the like. In one or more embodiments of the present invention, the one or more tools can include a controller 152, any number of process chambers 154, and a wafer measurement subsystem 156. As will be discussed in greater detail below, controller 152 utilizes information from fault detection system 110 and run-to-run controller 120 to process the wafers. In operation, incoming wafers 160 are initially moved into process chamber 154. From there, the wafers are processed and subsequently moved out of the tool. Examples of some process chambers include dual plasma etch chambers and CMP polishing chambers.
Wafer measurement subsystem 156 is used to measure wafer properties before, during and/or after wafer processing. These properties depend on the type of tool(s) at issue, and may include film thickness, uniformity, and the like. Wafer measurement subsystem 156 may include in situ sensors capable of measuring wafer parameters in real-time during processing. Similarly, wafer measurement subsystem 156 may include an integrated or inline sensor located within or proximate to process chambers 154 for near real-time measurements. Examples of in situ sensors include the In Situ Removal Monitor offered by Applied Materials, Inc. of Santa Clara, Calif. Examples of integrated or inline sensors include tools integrated with metrology techniques (e.g., Nova 2020™ offered by Nova Measuring Instruments, Ltd. of Rehovot, Israel or Nano 9000™ offered by Nanometric of Santa Clara, Calif.).
Generally speaking, the one or more tools 150 performs operations on incoming wafers 160 in accordance with a process recipe, or, in other words, a set of predefined process parameters required to effectuate a processing outcome. For example, a typical recipe may dictate one or more setpoints for any number of processes required to effect a desired output. Thus, a recipe may identify the required temperature, pressure, power, processing time, lift position and flow rate of a material needed to produce a particular wafer result. In addition, other properties may be included as well. In accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention, controller 152 utilizes information received from, for example, upstream metrology tools and previous operations or runs of the one or more tools 150 to modify these recipes, when necessary. Thus, a measured film thickness of an incoming wafer may be provided to controller 152 along with the results of previous runs prior to processing. This information, then, may be used by controller 152 to modify one or more setpoints of the process recipe to increase production efficiency.
During processing, wafer measurement subsystem 156 may be utilized to measure any number of wafer properties. In addition, wafer properties may also be measured immediately before or after processing. In one or more embodiments of the present invention, subsystem 156 may be used to detect completion of processing (e.g., via endpoint detection and the like). Once processing has been completed, the wafers are moved out of process chamber 154 to, for example, a downstream tool. Any wafer properties collected upon completion of processing, either by wafer measurement subsystem 156 or another metrology tool, may be forwarded to a downstream tool. Similarly, the measured properties may be forwarded to controller 152, fault detection system 110, and/or run-to-run controller 120 for use in modifying future runs. As will be discussed below, the data forwarded to fault detection system 110 and run-to-run controller 120 may be analyzed for detecting any fault conditions and for use in modifying subsequent process recipes.
Referring to
Using these inputs (i.e., recipe 212 and measurements 214), control process 210 generates specific setpoints for effecting a desired outcome. As known to those skilled in the art, control process 210 analyses the target properties and measurements 214 using, for example, a model for predicting the expected outputs based on certain inputs. In this case, the target properties, (e.g., film thickness) and prewafer measurements (e.g., an actual thickness) are entered. Then, based on a model the setpoints required to obtain the desired target properties may be predicted. In one or more embodiments of the present invention, the model may be entered or implemented by, for example, a process engineer or the like during a system initialization phase. Generally speaking, any suitable semiconductor wafer manufacturing model may be utilized.
In use, the measurements of any number of wafer properties are collected before, during and/or after processing by wafer measurement system 240. These properties are then forwarded to run-to-run process 230. Run-to-run process 230 analyzes the wafer properties measured by wafer measurement system 240 and determines whether any modifications can be made to the tool's process recipe (via e.g., control process 210) to increase efficiency. To illustrate, as described above, in a CMP polishing operation, polishing pads tend to wear out with use. As a result, worn polishing pads require greater polishing times than new pads to obtain a particular film thickness. Run-to-run process 230 may be used to recognize that a greater amount of time is required and direct the polishing tool to increase its polishing time when needed (e.g., when a pad has worn out). Thus, the results of the run-to-run process's analysis may be forwarded to control process 210 for use in addressing process drifts in subsequent operations.
In accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention, fault detection process 220 is used by system 200 to detect fault conditions. As will be described in greater detail below, fault detection process 220 uses data collected by, for example, in situ or integrated sensors during processing. One or more embodiments envision that a fault detection index is generated for these purposes. Specifically, this index may be utilized by control process 210 to determine whether to make adjustments to the process recipes. For instance, the fault detection index and the results of the analysis produced by run-to-run control process 230, which together constitute at least some of the processing attributes used by the invention, are forwarded to control process 210 and analyzed to determine whether a change should be made to the process recipes. For example, run-to-run control process 230 generates modifications to a recipe and fault detection process 220 identifies instances where the modification should or should not be implemented. Accordingly, control process 210 is able to modify a recipe only when appropriate (i.e., when the tool recipe may be adjusted in a manner that remedies an addressable problem or inefficiency). Thus, system 200 is able to refrain from implementing modifications generated according to run-to-run techniques under “fault” conditions.
In conjunction with the forwarding of the measured data to run-to-run controller 120, the corresponding wafer is delivered to one or more tools 150 with any associated process information (STEP 312). In addition, a manufacturing execution system (MES) transmits information relating to and identifying the particular recipe(s) to be utilized by the one or more tools 150 for processing the wafer. As known to those of ordinary skill in the art, the MES may identify the particular chambers to be used, any process sequences, routing information in the tool, settings, etc. Similarly, the MES is typically responsible for automating, integrating, and coordinating each of the processes and resources required to execute or produce an output product.
Subsequently, one or more tools 150 executes its manufacturing process (STEP 316). More particularly, one or more tools 150 processes the wafer in accordance with the information received from the MES in conjunction with any information provided by run-to-run controller 120 and/or fault detection system 110. As will be discussed below, the information received from run-to-run controller 120 may be used to modify or adjust the recipe provided by the MES in the absence of faults.
During execution of the process, as will be discussed below, fault detection system 110 monitors the tool for tool faults or tool failures and the wafers for wafer property failures (STEP 320). The analysis conducted by fault detection system or, in other words, whether a fault is detected, is forwarded to run-to-run controller 120 (STEP 324). For example, a fault detection index may be passed to controller 120 (from fault detection system 110) for identifying the presence or absence of a fault. In accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention, this information is then used to determine those instances where a recipe should (and should not) be modified according to run-to-run techniques.
After the tool process has completed execution, the wafer is measured in a post process measurement step (STEP 328). In one or more embodiments of the present invention, the measurements may be made using an integrated sensor on the tool. Similarly, other types of sensors may also be used. This information is then utilized to modify subsequent recipes, as discussed herein.
In accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention, and as mentioned above, run-to-run controller 120 modifies tool recipes using post process measurements in conjunction with fault detection information. Specifically, a determination is first made whether the process has experienced a tool or wafer property fault (STEP 332). For example, as will be discussed in greater detail below, a fault detection index (e.g., one or more numbers indicative of one or more conditions existing on a wafer and/or tool) generated by fault detection system 110 is compared with a range of acceptable values by, for example, run-to-run controller 120. If the index is not acceptable a fault has occurred. If a fault has occurred, the post process measurements collected from the run during which the tool fault occurred are not used for purposes of modifying subsequent recipes (STEP 336). Furthermore, processing may terminate altogether. On the other hand, if the process determines that a fault has not occurred, the recipe is modified under the run-to-run techniques of the present invention (STEP 340). In this manner, recipes are modified in those situations where a tool fault has not occurred.
In certain instances, the upstream measurements may not be valid. For example, it may be too time consuming to measure each wafer in some tools or processes. In these situations, each wafer or run may not be measured. For example, it may be possible that measurements are not performed on every second or third run. Post processing measurements from these wafers are therefore not valid or considered in the process. Thus, the upstream measurements are checked to determine whether they are valid measurements (STEP 408). If not, run-to-run controller 120 ignores the measured upstream measurements and continues processing using setpoints for previous runs (STEP 432). If valid, the measurements may be used in modifying the tool's processing recipe.
In accordance with at least some embodiments of the present invention, and as will be discussed in greater detail below, modifications to the recipe may be factored into a fault detection model as variables. In these embodiments, any recipe setpoint changes implemented by run-to-run controller 120 are forwarded to fault detection system 110, which in turn utilizes these recipe modifications to identify new fault condition ranges. In this manner, fault detection system 110 may operate in a sensitive manner (i.e., adjusting the range of fault conditions to comport with any modified recipe setpoints) even when recipe changes have been implemented by run-to-run controller 120.
It should be understood that the specific steps and sequence thereof of the embodiments heretofore described and depicted are by way of example, and that other additions, omissions and configurations are also contemplated by the present invention. For example, it is envisioned that all processing attributes received by the run-to-run controller first pass through (or originate with) the fault detection system. In such embodiments, if a fault is detected, then rather than receiving any processing attributes, the run-to-run controller might only receive, e.g., a fault alert.
In accordance with one or more aspects of the present invention, and as discussed above, runs or wafers processed by tools that have experienced a tool fault or that have experienced a wafer property failure are not considered in run-to-run processes for subsequent runs. Thus, fault detection information regarding the processing tool is considered before continuing (STEP 416). Specifically, if a failure or fault condition in a previous run is detected, the tool's recipe is not modified (STEP 412). Furthermore, an error message may be displayed, and processing may halt altogether.
If a fault was not detected in a previous run, any necessary transformations to the data are performed (STEP 420). For instance, the raw data read by the sensors may be converted to a more meaningful form. As one example, a uniformity parameter may require a ratio between a number of measurements. Thus, in this example, a ratio of each of the measurements is calculated. Similarly, an average of film thicknesses would require a transformation to average all of the measured thicknesses. Also, it is altogether possible that with certain measurements, no transformations are needed.
After performing any transformations (if necessary), a control process algorithm is executed for estimating the next predicted output (STEP 424). Generally speaking, the algorithm utilizes various modeling techniques, the tool recipe, and information relating to the incoming wafers and to previous process runs for establishing an output predicted to be produced by the tool. For example, by utilizing a model, a particular output film thickness may be predicted based on setpoints corresponding to parameters such as pressure, power, gas flow, etc.
Once the next outputs have been predicted by the control algorithm, the output is compared against specification limits (STEP 428). The specification limits indicate the acceptable limits of a wafer property. If the outputs are within the specification limits (i.e., if the predicted output is within an acceptable range), no modifications are needed and the same setpoints used in a previous run are again utilized (STEP 432). On the other hand, if the predicted output exceeds the specification limits, the predicted output is compared against the acceptable range of the tool (STEP 436). The range of the tool describes the attainable capabilities of the tool. If the predicted output cannot be brought within the specification limits because the tool range is insufficient, the desired results will therefore not be obtainable. In this case, the process ignores the results, displays an error message, and, for example, terminates processing (STEP 440).
If the predicted output is outside of the specification limits but within the tool range, a modification may be made to the tool recipe (STEP 444). In particular, one or more setpoints of the recipe are modified according to standard modeling techniques. In many cases, as known to those of ordinary skill in the art, these models are designed by process engineers and downloaded onto system 100 during an initialization phase of the facility. Once the adjustments required to obtain the desired product have been estimated, the process is executed (STEP 448). In this manner, in one or more embodiments of the present invention, the control algorithm utilizes one or more target water properties (i.e., desired outputs), measured incoming wafer properties, and modifications to a tool recipe as determined by run-to-run and fault detection techniques to efficiently produce semiconductor wafers.
After selecting a fault detection model, the manufacturing process commences, during which sensors are utilized to collect wafer properties such as film thickness, uniformity, etc. in real time. Alternatively, the wafer properties may be collected before or after a process. These properties are compared against the fault detection model to produce a fault detection index or fault event (i.e., a trigger). As known to those of ordinary skill in the art, any number of methods may be used to generate the fault detection index. For example, any of statistical process control, neural network, or model based analysis techniques and the like may be utilized. The index represents the optimality of the wafers being produced by the tool. Thus, the index may be compared against a predetermined value to indicate a tool fault or tool failure. As discussed above, this index constitutes at least a portion of the wafer processing attributes used by the present invention in optimizing wafer production. For example, also as discussed above, run-to-run controller 120 may ignore measured wafer properties from runs produced by tools that have experienced a fault condition.
As mentioned briefly above, at least some embodiments of the present invention contemplate factoring modifications to the recipe made by run-to-run controller 120 into the fault detection model as independent parameters. In this manner, fault detection system 110 may be able to redefine a range of fault conditions to accommodate recipe changes to increase system sensitivity.
More specifically, fault condition boundaries may be redefined according to, and to account for, changes or modifications to recipe setpoints. In particular, by adjusting fault condition ranges according to recipe setpoint modifications, a narrower range of fault conditions may be implemented in the fault detection model. In at least some embodiments of the present invention, fault condition ranges may be set according to a fixed distance from a recipe setpoint. Thus, in these embodiments, a modification to a setpoint results in a corresponding modification to the fault condition range.
As an example, in a single dimensional case, a fixed recipe setpoint for obtaining a particular target property is set at an initial value (e.g., fifty units). According to the fault detection model associated with this recipe, fault conditions boundaries may be set initially at a given range (e.g., forty-eight and fifty-two units). Thus, actual wafer property measurements outside the given range (e.g., above fifty-two and below forty-eight units) result in a fault condition. Under these fault conditions, as discussed above, processing may, for example, terminate.
During processing, modifications to a recipe setpoint may be made by run-to-run controller 120 to address a process output drift. Thus, in the above example, run-to-run controller 120 may increase the recipe setpoint (e.g., from fifty to fifty-three units), thereby inadvertently resulting in a fault condition. To account for normal run-to-run modifications, one solution would be to increase the range of fault conditions (e.g., to forty-three and fifty-seven units). However, this solution desensitizes the fault detection capability. To alleviate this issue, embodiments of the present invention contemplate incorporating the modified setpoints into the fault detection models to generate fault condition boundaries based on a distance from the setpoint. In this manner, system sensitivity is not compromised by integrating run-to-run techniques with fault detection concepts. Thus, in this example, the range of fault conditions would be reset at fifty one to fifty one to fifty five.
Multi-dimensional scenarios of integration are similar. In these cases, the non-fault condition regions may be viewed as a distance from the coordinates of the multi-dimensional setpoint. When one or more of the coordinates defining the setpoint in a recipe is modified by run-to-run controller 120, the range of fault condition boundaries may be redefined as a function of the manipulated recipe parameters.
Additionally, in at least some embodiments of multiple input, multiple output scenarios, a distance between a predicted output value and an actual measured output value may be used as a metric for fault detection. Thus, the difference between the predicted and actual values may be used to determine the fault condition boundaries.
A display interface 672 interfaces display 648 and permits information from the bus 656 to be displayed on display 648. Display 648 is also an optional accessory. Communications with external devices such as the other components of the system described above, occur utilizing, for example, communication port 674. For example, port 674 may be interfaced with a bus/network linked to metrology tools 190. Optical fibers and/or electrical cables and/or conductors and/or optical communication (e.g., infrared, and the like) and/or wireless communication (e.g., radio frequency (RF), and the like) can be used as the transport medium between the external devices and communication port 674. Peripheral interface 654 interfaces the keyboard 650 and mouse 652, permitting input data to be transmitted to bus 656. In addition to these components, the control system also optionally includes an infrared transmitter 678 and/or infrared receiver 676. Infrared transmitters are optionally utilized when the computer system is used in conjunction with one or more of the processing components/stations that transmits/receives data via infrared signal transmission. Instead of utilizing an infrared transmitter or infrared receiver, the control system may also optionally use a low power radio transmitter 680 and/or a low power radio receiver 682. The low power radio transmitter transmits the signal for reception by components of the production process, and receives signals from the components via the low power radio receiver.
Embodiments of the present invention contemplate that various portions of software for implementing the various aspects of the present invention as previously described can reside in the memory/storage devices.
In general, it should be emphasized that the various components of embodiments of the present invention can be implemented in hardware, software, or a combination thereof. In such embodiments, the various components and steps would be implemented in hardware and/or software to perform the functions of the present invention. Any presently available or future developed computer software language and/or hardware components can be employed in such embodiments of the present invention. For example, at least some of the functionality mentioned above could be implemented using BASIC, C, C++ or other programming or scripting languages (e.g., TCL, Pearl, Java or SQL.
It is also to be appreciated and understood that the specific embodiments of the invention described hereinbefore are merely illustrative of the general principles of the invention. Various modifications may be made by those skilled in the art consistent with the principles set forth hereinbefore.
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/305,140 filed on Jul. 16, 2001, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3205485 | Noltingk | Sep 1965 | A |
3229198 | Libby | Jan 1966 | A |
3767900 | Chao et al. | Oct 1973 | A |
3920965 | Sohrwardy | Nov 1975 | A |
4000458 | Miller et al. | Dec 1976 | A |
4207520 | Flora et al. | Jun 1980 | A |
4209744 | Gerasimov et al. | Jun 1980 | A |
4302721 | Urbanek et al. | Nov 1981 | A |
4368510 | Anderson | Jan 1983 | A |
4609870 | Lale et al. | Sep 1986 | A |
4616308 | Morshedi et al. | Oct 1986 | A |
4663703 | Axelby et al. | May 1987 | A |
4698766 | Entwistle et al. | Oct 1987 | A |
4750141 | Judell et al. | Jun 1988 | A |
4755753 | Chern | Jul 1988 | A |
4757259 | Charpentier | Jul 1988 | A |
4796194 | Atherton | Jan 1989 | A |
4901218 | Cornwell | Feb 1990 | A |
4938600 | Into | Jul 1990 | A |
4957605 | Hurwitt et al. | Sep 1990 | A |
4967381 | Lane et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
5089970 | Lee et al. | Feb 1992 | A |
5108570 | Wang | Apr 1992 | A |
5208765 | Turnbull | May 1993 | A |
5220517 | Sierk et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5226118 | Baker et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
5231585 | Kobayashi et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
5236868 | Nulman | Aug 1993 | A |
5240552 | Yu et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5260868 | Gupta et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5270222 | Moslehi | Dec 1993 | A |
5283141 | Yoon et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5295242 | Mashruwala et al. | Mar 1994 | A |
5309221 | Fischer et al. | May 1994 | A |
5329463 | Sierk et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5338630 | Yoon et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5347446 | Iino et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
5367624 | Cooper | Nov 1994 | A |
5369544 | Mastrangelo | Nov 1994 | A |
5375064 | Bollinger | Dec 1994 | A |
5398336 | Tantry et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5402367 | Sullivan et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5408405 | Mozumder et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5410473 | Kaneko et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5420796 | Weling et al. | May 1995 | A |
5427878 | Corliss | Jun 1995 | A |
5444837 | Bomans et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5469361 | Moyne | Nov 1995 | A |
5485082 | Wisspeintner et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5490097 | Swenson et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5495417 | Fuduka et al. | Feb 1996 | A |
5497316 | Sierk et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5497381 | O'Donoghue et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5503707 | Maung et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5508947 | Sierk et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5511005 | Abbe et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5519605 | Cawlfield | May 1996 | A |
5525808 | Irie et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5526293 | Mozumder et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5534289 | Bilder et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5541510 | Danielson | Jul 1996 | A |
5546312 | Mozumder et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5553195 | Meijer | Sep 1996 | A |
5571366 | Ishii et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5586039 | Hirsch et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5599423 | Parker et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5602492 | Cresswell et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5603707 | Trombetta et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5617023 | Skalski | Apr 1997 | A |
5627083 | Tounai | May 1997 | A |
5629216 | Wijaranakula et al. | May 1997 | A |
5642296 | Saxena | Jun 1997 | A |
5646870 | Krivokapic et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5649169 | Berezin et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5654903 | Reitman et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5655951 | Meikle et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5657254 | Sierk et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5661669 | Mozumder et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5663797 | Sandhu | Sep 1997 | A |
5664987 | Renteln | Sep 1997 | A |
5665199 | Sahota et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5665214 | Iturralde | Sep 1997 | A |
5666297 | Britt et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5667424 | Pan | Sep 1997 | A |
5674787 | Zhao et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5694325 | Fukuda et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5695810 | Dubin et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5698989 | Nulman | Dec 1997 | A |
5719495 | Moslehi | Feb 1998 | A |
5719796 | Chen | Feb 1998 | A |
5735055 | Hochbein et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5740429 | Wang et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5751582 | Saxena et al. | May 1998 | A |
5754297 | Nulman | May 1998 | A |
5761064 | La et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5761065 | Kittler et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5764543 | Kennedy | Jun 1998 | A |
5777901 | Berezin et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5787021 | Samaha | Jul 1998 | A |
5787269 | Hyodo | Jul 1998 | A |
5808303 | Schlagheck et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5812407 | Sato et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5823854 | Chen | Oct 1998 | A |
5824599 | Schacham-Diamand et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5825356 | Habib et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5825913 | Rostami et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5828778 | Hagi et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5831851 | Eastburn et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5832224 | Fehskens et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5838595 | Sullivan et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5838951 | Song | Nov 1998 | A |
5844554 | Geller et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5857258 | Penzes et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5859777 | Yokoyama et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5859964 | Wang et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5859975 | Brewer et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5862054 | Li | Jan 1999 | A |
5863807 | Jang et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5867389 | Hamada et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5870306 | Harada | Feb 1999 | A |
5871805 | Lemelson | Feb 1999 | A |
5883437 | Maruyama et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5889991 | Consolatti et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5895596 | Stoddard et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5901313 | Wolf et al. | May 1999 | A |
5903455 | Sharpe, Jr. et al. | May 1999 | A |
5910011 | Cruse | Jun 1999 | A |
5910846 | Sandhu | Jun 1999 | A |
5912678 | Saxena et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5916016 | Bothra | Jun 1999 | A |
5923553 | Yi | Jul 1999 | A |
5926690 | Toprac et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5930138 | Lin et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5940300 | Ozaki | Aug 1999 | A |
5943237 | Van Boxem | Aug 1999 | A |
5943550 | Fulford, Jr. et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5960185 | Nguyen | Sep 1999 | A |
5960214 | Sharpe, Jr. et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5961369 | Bartels et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5963881 | Kahn et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5975994 | Sandhu et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5978751 | Pence et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5982920 | Tobin, Jr. et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6002989 | Shiba et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6012048 | Gustin et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6017771 | Yang et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6036349 | Gombar | Mar 2000 | A |
6037664 | Zhao et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6041263 | Boston et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6041270 | Steffan et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6054379 | Yau et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6059636 | Inaba et al. | May 2000 | A |
6064759 | Buckley et al. | May 2000 | A |
6072313 | Li et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6074443 | Venkatesh et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6077412 | Ting et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6078845 | Friedman | Jun 2000 | A |
6094688 | Mellen-Garnett et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6096649 | Jang | Aug 2000 | A |
6097887 | Hardikar et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6100195 | Chan et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6108092 | Sandhu | Aug 2000 | A |
6111634 | Pecen et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6112130 | Fukuda et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6113462 | Yang | Sep 2000 | A |
6114238 | Liao | Sep 2000 | A |
6127263 | Parikh | Oct 2000 | A |
6128016 | Coelho et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6136163 | Cheung et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6141660 | Bach et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6143646 | Wetzel | Nov 2000 | A |
6148099 | Lee et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6148239 | Funk et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6148246 | Kawazome | Nov 2000 | A |
6150270 | Matsuda et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6157864 | Schwenke et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6159075 | Zhang | Dec 2000 | A |
6159644 | Satoh et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6161054 | Rosenthal et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6169931 | Runnels | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6172756 | Chalmers et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6173240 | Sepulveda et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6175777 | Kim | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6178390 | Jun | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6181013 | Liu et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6183345 | Kamono et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6185324 | Ishihara et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6191864 | Sandhu | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6192291 | Kwon | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6197604 | Miller et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6204165 | Ghoshal | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6207937 | Stoddard et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6210983 | Atchison et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6211094 | Jun et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6211495 | Stoddard et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6212961 | Dvir | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6214734 | Bothra et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6217412 | Campbell et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6219711 | Chari | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6222164 | Stoddard et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6222936 | Phan et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6226563 | Lim | May 2001 | B1 |
6226792 | Goiffon et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6228280 | Li et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6230069 | Campbell et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6236903 | Kim et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6237050 | Kim et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6240330 | Kurtzberg et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6240331 | Yun | May 2001 | B1 |
6245581 | Bonser et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6246972 | Klimasauskas | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6248602 | Bode et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6249712 | Boiquaye | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6252412 | Talbot et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6253366 | Mutschler, III | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6259160 | Lopatin et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6263255 | Tan et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6268270 | Scheid et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6271670 | Caffey | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6276989 | Campbell et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6277014 | Chen et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6278899 | Piche et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6280289 | Wiswesser et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6281127 | Shue | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6284622 | Campbell et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6287879 | Gonzales et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6290572 | Hofmann | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6291367 | Kelkar | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6292708 | Allen et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6298274 | Inoue | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6298470 | Breiner et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6303395 | Nulman | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6304999 | Toprac et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6307628 | Lu et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6314379 | Hu et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6317643 | Dmochowski | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6320655 | Matsushita et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6324481 | Atchison et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6334807 | Lebel et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6336841 | Chang | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6339727 | Ladd | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6340602 | Johnson et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6345288 | Reed et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6345315 | Mishra | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6346426 | Toprac et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6355559 | Havemann et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6360133 | Campbell et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6360184 | Jacquez | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6363294 | Coronel et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6366934 | Cheng et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6368879 | Toprac | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6368883 | Bode et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6368884 | Goodwin et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6379980 | Toprac | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6381564 | Davis et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6388253 | Su | May 2002 | B1 |
6389491 | Jacobson et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6391780 | Shih et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6395152 | Wang | May 2002 | B1 |
6397114 | Eryurek et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6400162 | Mallory et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6405096 | Toprac et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6405144 | Toprac et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6417014 | Lam et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6427093 | Toprac | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6432728 | Tai et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6435952 | Boyd et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6438438 | Takagi et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6440295 | Wang | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6441350 | Stoddard et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6442496 | Pasadyn et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6449524 | Miller et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6455415 | Lopatin et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6455937 | Cunningham | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6465263 | Coss et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6470230 | Toprac et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6479902 | Lopatin et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6479990 | Mednikov et al. | Nov 2002 | B2 |
6482660 | Conchieri et al. | Nov 2002 | B2 |
6484064 | Campbell | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6486492 | Su | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6492281 | Song et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6495452 | Shih | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6503839 | Gonzales et al. | Jan 2003 | B2 |
6515368 | Lopatin et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6517413 | Hu et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6517414 | Tobin et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6528409 | Lopatin et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6529789 | Campbell et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6532555 | Miller et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6535783 | Miller et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6537912 | Agarwal | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6540591 | Pasadyn et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6541401 | Herner et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6546508 | Sonderman et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6556881 | Miller | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6560504 | Goodwin et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6563308 | Nagano et al. | May 2003 | B2 |
6567717 | Krivokapic et al. | May 2003 | B2 |
6580958 | Takano | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6587744 | Stoddard et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6590179 | Tanaka et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6604012 | Cho et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6605549 | Leu et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6607976 | Chen et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6609946 | Tran | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6616513 | Osterheld | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6618692 | Takahashi et al. | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6624075 | Lopatin et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6625497 | Fairbairn et al. | Sep 2003 | B2 |
6630741 | Lopatin et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6640151 | Somekh et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6652355 | Wiswesser et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6660633 | Lopatin et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6678570 | Pasadyn et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6708074 | Chi et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6708075 | Sonderman et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6725402 | Coss et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6728587 | Goldman et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6735492 | Conrad et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6751518 | Sonderman et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6774998 | Wright et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6913938 | Shanmugasundram et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
20010001755 | Sandhu et al. | May 2001 | A1 |
20010003084 | Finarov | Jun 2001 | A1 |
20010006873 | Moore | Jul 2001 | A1 |
20010030366 | Nakano et al. | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010039462 | Mendez et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010040997 | Tsap et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010042690 | Talieh | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20010044667 | Nakano et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020032499 | Wilson et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020058460 | Lee et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020070126 | Sato et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020077031 | Johanssson et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020081951 | Boyd et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020089676 | Pecen et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020102853 | Li et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020107599 | Patel et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020107604 | Riley et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020113039 | Mok et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020127950 | Hirose et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020128805 | Goldman et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020149359 | Crouzen et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020165636 | Hasan | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020183986 | Stewart et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020185658 | Inoue et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020193899 | Shanmugasundram et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020193902 | Shanmugasundram et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020197745 | Shanmugasundram et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020197934 | Paik | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020199082 | Shanmugasundram et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030017256 | Shimane | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030020909 | Adams et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030020928 | Ritzdorf et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030154062 | Daft et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2050247 | Aug 1991 | CA |
2165847 | Aug 1991 | CA |
2194855 | Aug 1991 | CA |
0 397 924 | Nov 1990 | EP |
0 621 522 | Oct 1994 | EP |
0 747 795 | Dec 1996 | EP |
0 869 652 | Oct 1998 | EP |
0 877 308 | Nov 1998 | EP |
0 881 040 | Dec 1998 | EP |
0 895 145 | Feb 1999 | EP |
0 910 123 | Apr 1999 | EP |
0 932 194 | Jul 1999 | EP |
0 932 195 | Jul 1999 | EP |
1 066 925 | Jan 2001 | EP |
1 067 757 | Jan 2001 | EP |
1 071 128 | Jan 2001 | EP |
1 083 470 | Mar 2001 | EP |
1 092 505 | Apr 2001 | EP |
1072967 | Nov 2001 | EP |
1 182 526 | Feb 2002 | EP |
2 347 885 | Sep 2000 | GB |
2 365 215 | Feb 2002 | GB |
61-66104 | Apr 1986 | JP |
61-171147 | Aug 1986 | JP |
01-283934 | Nov 1989 | JP |
3-202710 | Sep 1991 | JP |
05-151231 | Jun 1993 | JP |
05-216896 | Aug 1993 | JP |
05-266029 | Oct 1993 | JP |
06-110894 | Apr 1994 | JP |
06-176994 | Jun 1994 | JP |
06-184434 | Jul 1994 | JP |
06-252236 | Sep 1994 | JP |
06-260380 | Sep 1994 | JP |
8-23166 | Jan 1996 | JP |
08-50161 | Feb 1996 | JP |
08-149583 | Jun 1996 | JP |
08-304023 | Nov 1996 | JP |
09-34535 | Feb 1997 | JP |
9-246547 | Sep 1997 | JP |
10-34522 | Feb 1998 | JP |
10-173029 | Jun 1998 | JP |
11-67853 | Mar 1999 | JP |
11-126816 | May 1999 | JP |
11-135601 | May 1999 | JP |
2000-183001 | Jun 2000 | JP |
2001-76982 | Mar 2001 | JP |
2001-284299 | Oct 2001 | JP |
2001-305108 | Oct 2001 | JP |
2002-9030 | Jan 2002 | JP |
2002-343754 | Nov 2002 | JP |
434103 | May 2001 | TW |
436383 | May 2001 | TW |
455938 | Sep 2001 | TW |
455976 | Sep 2001 | TW |
WO 9534866 | Dec 1995 | WO |
WO 9805066 | Feb 1998 | WO |
WO 9845090 | Oct 1998 | WO |
WO 9909371 | Feb 1999 | WO |
WO 9925520 | May 1999 | WO |
WO 9959200 | Nov 1999 | WO |
WO 0000874 | Jan 2000 | WO |
WO 0005759 | Feb 2000 | WO |
WO 0035063 | Jun 2000 | WO |
WO 0054325 | Sep 2000 | WO |
WO 0079355 | Dec 2000 | WO |
WO 0111679 | Feb 2001 | WO |
WO 0115865 | Mar 2001 | WO |
WO 0118623 | Mar 2001 | WO |
WO 0125865 | Apr 2001 | WO |
WO 0133277 | May 2001 | WO |
WO0133501 | May 2001 | WO |
WO 0152055 | Jul 2001 | WO |
WO 0152319 | Jul 2001 | WO |
WO 0157823 | Aug 2001 | WO |
WO 01080306 | Oct 2001 | WO |
WO 0217150 | Feb 2002 | WO |
WO 0231613 | Apr 2002 | WO |
WO 0231613 | Apr 2002 | WO |
WO 0233737 | Apr 2002 | WO |
WO 02074491 | Sep 2002 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20030014145 A1 | Jan 2003 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60305140 | Jul 2001 | US |