The present invention relates to integrated circuits (ICs) and semiconductor devices in general and their methods of manufacture wherein the integrated circuits and semiconductor devices employ camouflaging techniques which make it difficult for the reverse engineer to discern how the semiconductor device functions.
The present invention is related to the following US patents by some of the same inventors as the present inventors:
The creation of complex integrated circuits and semiconductor devices can be an expensive undertaking because of the large number of hours of sophisticated engineering talent involved in designing such devices. Additionally, integrated circuits can include read only memories and/or EEPROMs into which software, in the form of firmware, is encoded. Further, integrated circuits are often used in applications involving the encryption of information. In order to keep the encrypted information confidential, devices should be protected from being reverse engineered. Thus, there can be a variety of reasons for protecting integrated circuits and other semiconductor devices from being reversed engineered.
In order to keep the reverse engineer at bay, different techniques are known in the art to make integrated circuits more difficult to reverse engineer. One technique is to make the connections between transistors difficult to determine forcing the reverse engineer to perform a careful analysis of each transistor (in particular, each CMOS transistor pair for CMOS devices), and thwarting attempts to use automatic circuit and pattern recognition techniques in order to reverse engineer an integrated circuit. Since integrated circuits can have hundreds of thousands or even millions of transistors, forcing the reverse engineer to analyze each transistor carefully in a device can effectively frustrate the reverse engineer's ability to reverse engineer the device successfully.
A conductive layer, such as silicide, is often used during the manufacture of semiconductor devices. In modern CMOS processing, especially with a minimum feature size below 0.5 μm, a silicide layer is utilized to improve the conductivity of gate, source and drain contacts. In accordance with typical design rules, any active region resulting in a source/drain region is often silicided.
One reverse engineering technique involves de-layering the completed IC by means of chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) or other etching processes. The etching processes may, under some conditions, reveal the regions between where the silicide was formed on the substrate, and where it was not, i.e. the regions defined by the silicide block mask step and by regions where structures, such as a polysilicon gate, prevent the silicide layer from being deposited on the substrate. These regions may be revealed because, under some kinds of etches, there is an observable difference in topology due to different etching rates for silicided versus non-silicided silicon. The reverse engineer, by noting the silicided areas versus non-silicided areas, may make assumptions as to the function of the device. This information can then be stored into a database for automatic classification of other similar devices.
Some methods of protecting against reverse engineering may be susceptible to discovery under some reverse engineering techniques, such as chemical-mechanical polishing (CMP) or other etching techniques. For example,
The top-down view of the false transistor is different from a top-down view of a true transistor and as such, the difference may be a signature that the transistor is not a true transistor.
For functional or true transistors, as shown in
It should be understood that although
Our U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/637,848 teaches a semiconductor device and a method of manufacturing semiconductor devices that uses artifact edges to confuse the reverse engineer. Providing artifact edges that are not indicative of the actual device formed will further confuse the reverse engineer and result in incorrect conclusions as to the actual composition, and thus function, of the device.
We have further developed the teachings about in order to allow LDD implants and, preferably in combination with judicious patterning of silicide layers, to interconnect (or not interconnect) active regions of different transistors in a way which is very apt to confuse the reverse engineer. This new technique can be used with the techniques disclosed in the related application to further confuse the reverse engineer.
A technique is described by which connections between transistors (and more specifically between implanted active areas from which transistors are formed) in a CMOS logic circuit are produced in such a way that they are difficult to observe by a reverse engineer. In fact, the structure by which the connection is affected is a lightly doped density (LDD) implanted region between the active areas and the difficulty for the reverse engineer comes from two aspects of this invention and the structure described below. First, connections or disconnections can be made by the same structure by choosing either the “right” LDD implant or the “wrong” LDD implant depending upon the dopant type (n or p) used for the active areas. Because the dopant density of the LDD is so small, the reverse engineer cannot use typical reverse engineering techniques to determine when implants are in the substrate and what their polarity is. Second, the connections are not made via metal wiring above the substrate that is clearly visible to the reverse engineer, as a result etching to the surface is required. Because of the relatively small density of the LDD implant compared to the implant used in a normal source or drain active region, the connections made are more resistive than would be a by conductive metal wiring or by a heavier implant. As a result, the technique would preferentially be used to connect transistors that do not carry signal power, but rather are necessary for the logical performance of the circuit. There are many such connections in a typical IC and hence, using this invention, all or some of these “connections” can be made that they appear functionally ambiguous to the reverse engineer.
In another aspect the present invention provide methods for and structures for camouflaging an integrated circuit structure and strengthen its resistance to reverse engineering. A plurality of transistors are formed in a semiconductor substrate, at least some of the transistors being of the type having sidewall spacers with LDD regions formed under the sidewall spacers. Transistors are programmably interconnected with ambiguous interconnection features, the ambiguous interconnection features each comprising a channel formed in the semiconductor substrate with preferably the same dopant density as the LDD regions, with selected ones of the channels being formed of a conductivity type supporting electrical communication between interconnected active regions and with other selected ones of the channels being formed of a conductivity type inhibiting electrical communication but ambiguously appearing to a reverse engineer as supporting electrical communication.
a depicts artifact edges of a silicide layer that the reverse engineer could see after all the metal and oxide layers have been removed from a false transistor;
b depicts a cross-section view of the false transistor of
a depicts prior art artifact edges of a suicide layer that the reverse engineer could see after all the metal and oxide layers have been removed from a true transistor;
b depicts a cross-section view of the prior art true transistor of
a depicts a structure to provide connection or isolation between an implanted active area of a transistor (the N+ active region in this figure) and Vss;
b is similar to the embodiment of
The present invention now will be described more fully hereinafter with reference to the accompanying drawings, in which a two embodiments of the invention are shown. This invention may be embodied in many different forms and should not be construed as limited to the embodiments set forth herein.
Many methods of manufacturing semiconductor devices are well known in the art. The following discussion focuses on modifying a conductive layer block mask used during the manufacture of semiconductor devices in order to confuse the reverse engineer. The discussion is not intended to provide all of the semiconductor manufacturing details, which are well known in the art. Moreover, the following detailed description discusses the formation of implanted regions in a semiconductor substrate. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that regions in a semiconductor substrate formed by adding dopants into the substrate can be formed by a number of techniques, including implantation and diffusion. In terms of the present disclosure, implantation is the preferred technique, but those skilled in the art should realize that other regions forming techniques may alternatively be used if desired.
In order to confuse the reverse engineer, the placement of an artifact edge of a silicide layer that would be seen when a reverse engineer examines devices manufactured with other reverse-engineering-detection-prevention techniques can be changed, as described in the patent application referred to above. In reverse-engineering-detection-prevention techniques, false, or non-operational, transistors may be used along with true, or operational, transistors. Some false transistors are manufactured without sidewall spacers, see
Techniques for locating the artifact edges on non-operational transistors such that they appear to a reverse engineer as operational transistors are discussed in our co-pending pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/637,848 discussed above.
The presently disclosed technique also allows for connections between transistors (and more specifically between implanted active areas from which transistors are formed) in a CMOS logic circuit to be formed in such a way that they are difficult to observe by a reverse engineer. In
The structure by which the connection is effected between the two active regions is a lightly doped density (LDD) region or channel 21 disposed between the active regions 12′, 16. Channel 21 is preferably formed using semiconductor implantation techniques, but other well-known semiconductor fabrication techniques, known to those skilled in the art may, be used instead to form regions or channel 21 and indeed to form active regions 12′, 16 as well.
The lightly doped density (LDD) region or channel 21 is preferably formed at the same time and with the same dopant concentration and depth as LDD region 10, which is also preferably formed by the same fabrication technique used to form region or channel 21, such as implantation, but its polarity will depend on whether it is formed at the same time as the LDD regions 10 of a (i) n-type or (ii) p-type transistor. As such, no additional processing should be needed to be added to conventional CMOS processing in order to implement this technology since the LDD regions 10 of both (i) n-type and (ii) p-type transistors are formed when making CMOS devices. Therefore the polarity of the region or channel 21 can be programmed as desired by selecting whether region or channel 21 has n-type or p-type doping.
The difficulty for the reverse engineer comes from two aspects of this invention and this structure. First, connections or disconnections can be made by the same structure 21 by choosing either the “right” LDD implant conductivity type or the “wrong” LDD implant conductivity type depending upon the dopant type (n or p) used for the connected active areas. For example, if active regions 12′ and 16 are n-type, then a n-type LDD channel 21 interconnecting them will form an electrical conduction path between regions 12′ and 16, whereas if active regions 12′ and 16 are again n-type but region 21 is formed using a dopant creating p-type conductivity, then no electrical conduction channel is then formed between regions 12′ and 16. The dopant density of the LDD is sufficiently small compared to the doses normally used in the source and/or drain active regions, that the reverse engineer cannot easily use his or her conventional reverse engineering techniques to determine both (i) where LDD regions and/or channels 21 occur in the substrate and (ii) what their conductivity type is. Since channel 21 is formed when other LDD regions 10 are formed, it has the same relatively low dopant density and the reverse engineer will have some difficulty in determining whether channel 21 even exists and even more difficulty in determining whether it is conducting or non-conducting. Second, the connections between regions 12′ and 16 are not made via a conventional metal layer above the substrate (that is clearly visible to the reverse engineer), and therefore etching of the surface is required by the reverse engineer to “see” connections formed by channels 21. Since the channels 21 preferably have LDD doping levels they are hard to even see using etching techniques. And since the channels 21 preferably have LDD doping levels their polarity (n-type or p-type) is even more difficult to determined. And if the reverse engineer has to find thousands of channels 21 on a given chip and then try to determine their polarities, then he or she was a major, time-consuming problem to solve.
Because of the preferred relatively small concentration of the LDD impurity dosage (used to make the LDD region n-type or p-type) compared to the impurity dosage used in a typical source or drain active region, the connections 21 made (when they are of the same conductivity type as the active regions they are joining) are more resistive than would be by conductive metal wiring or by a heavier dopant concentration. As a result, this technique is preferably be used to connect active areas of transistors that do not carry signal power (like a RF power transistor, for example), but rather are preferably used to interconnect low power transistors used, for example, in the logical operation of an intended circuit. There are many such low power connections in a typical IC and hence, using this invention, all or some of these “connections” can be made that they appear functionally ambiguous to the reverse engineer.
The designer who utilizes region or channel 21 has the following options:
(i) to make a connection between two N+ regions 12′, 16, the implant 21 would be a n-type LDD implant;
(ii) to instead isolate the two N+ regions 12′, 16, the one could provide no channel 21 and instead rely on the p-well 20 or provide a p-type LDD dose to channel 21, depending on the details of the process and the implant levels available.
The design constraints for L1 and L2 are as follows:
(i) L1, the distance between the active regions of neighboring transistors (see
(ii) L2 is the minimum silicide block overlap S/D implant (i.e. the implants 12′, 16 in this figure) to ensure there is no short from the silicide 15 to either the channel 21, the substrate 22 or the well 20, as the case may be, due to mask alignment errors.
If the channel 21 is intended as being a false, non-conducting channel, then allowing silicide overlay it (at the points where it meets the active regions 12′, 16) would bring channel 21 into conduction when it is desired that it be non-conducting. If the channel 21 is supposed to be conducting, then allowing the silicide to overlay does not adversely affect its conductivity, but since the desire is to confuse the reverse engineer, the silicide is preferably spaced from the channels 21 (for both conducting and non-conducting channels) at least one end of the channel so that both conducting and non-conducting channels 21 would be conducting or non-conducting as a function of the conductivity type of the channel 21 as opposed to the configuration of the overlying silicide layer (since the configuration of the overlying silicide layer is more easily detected by the reverse engineer than is the existence and conductivity type—polarity—of the channels 21.
The distance L2 is usually larger than a typical sidewall spacing thickness.
The discussion above regarding
In
In order to make a circuit truly operational, chances are that many transistor interconnects will need to be provided and, due to topology limitations, some of the interconnects will be provided by conventional imaged metal layers. But the use of conventional imaged metal layers for transistor interconnects should preferably be minimized since it is a fairly easy task for the reverse engineer to work out such metal interconnects on a semiconductor chip. Let the reverse engineer toil away instead trying to figure out which channels 21 are conducting (and therefore real) and which channels 21 are non-conducting (and therefore fake), since they all look the same to the reverse engineer who sees the chip in a top down view.
The above-discussed embodiment demonstrates one technique for providing ambiguity in interconnects between active regions of spaced apart transistors. This technology can be used in other connection embodiments, such as a connection of an active region to either Vss or Vdd.
The channels 21, as noted provide desirable ambiguity, and similar structures can be fabricated with ambiguity of connection or isolation to either Vss, or Vdd, for example. See
(i) can be a N-type LDD (NLDD) doped channel to connect an active region 12, 16 to Vss in a n-type structure as shown in
(ii) the opposite, i.e. a P-type LDD (PLDD) doped channel to isolate an active region 12, 16 from VDD as shown in
The design rules for the fabrication process determine the dimensions noted below, i.e.
(i) L3=the minimum silicide block opening which consists of one part within the active region that prevents leakage plus another part outside the active region where the distance is the possible mask alignment error for the process utilized;
(ii) L4=the minimum N+ to P+ separation within the same region of active area—i.e. a breakdown consideration;
(iii) L2=specifies the mask alignment error to insure that active region (which could be N+ type) is not shorted to the well (which would then be p-type).
As noted above, a reverse engineer uses an etch process to try to differentiate the polarity of doped areas, but, more accurately, the etch process helps determine an edge between two different doped regions. This difference may be either in concentration or polarity (e.g., a N+ active region compared to a P-type well or other LDD regions). The difference will be seen due to the difference in the etch rate between the differently doped regions. Since the LDD implant is relatively low in density compared to the active region implant, the edge between these two regions will show up in the etch. That is, the structure in
Using the LDD doping levels in the channel 21 provides the connection ambiguity discussed above. In contrast, using a full density doping in channel 21 would not provide the highly desirable ambiguity that fends off the reverse engineer because an LDD region is more ambiguous after etching where a stain may be used by the reverse engineer to try to determine the conductivity type of the regions and a lower density dosage gives a weaker response to stain and thus it is more difficult to distinguish n-type LLD regions from p-type LLD regions compared to distinguishing full density N+ and P+ regions. Also, full density regions butted together provide poor isolation as the diode junction is worse (it has a lower breakdown voltage) compared to the full density to LDD junction which occurs in the embodiment of
Having described the invention in connection with certain preferred embodiments thereof, modification will now certainly suggest itself to those skilled in the art. As such, the invention is not to be limited to the disclosed embodiments, except as is specifically required by the appended claims.
This application is a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/855,005 entitled “Programmable Connection and Isolation of Active Regions in an Integrated Circuit Using Ambiguous Features to Confuse a Reverse Engineer” filed on Sep. 13, 2007 now U.S. Pat. No. 8,168,487, the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference. This application and U.S. application Ser. No. 11/855,005 claim the benefit of U.S. provisional application No. 60/848,204 filed on Sep. 28, 2006. This application is related to co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/758,792 entitled “Circuit Protection Implemented Using a Double Polysilicon Layer CMOS Process” filed on Jan. 11, 2001 by J. P. Baukus, Lap Wai Chow and W. C. Clark. This application is also related to co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/637,848 entitled “Use of Silicon Block Process Step to Camouflage a False Transistor” filed on Aug. 7, 2003 by Lap Wai Chow, W. C. Clark, J. P. Baukus and G. Harbison (Now U.S. Pat. No. 6,979,606 issued Dec. 27, 2005), the disclosure of which is hereby incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3673471 | Klein et al. | Jun 1972 | A |
3898105 | Mai | Aug 1975 | A |
3946426 | Sanders | Mar 1976 | A |
3983620 | Spadea | Oct 1976 | A |
4017888 | Christie et al. | Apr 1977 | A |
4101344 | Kooi et al. | Jul 1978 | A |
4139864 | Schulman | Feb 1979 | A |
4143854 | Vetter | Mar 1979 | A |
4145701 | Kawagoe | Mar 1979 | A |
4164461 | Schilling | Aug 1979 | A |
4196443 | Dingwall | Apr 1980 | A |
4267578 | Vetter | May 1981 | A |
4291391 | Chaterjee et al. | Sep 1981 | A |
4295897 | Tubbs et al. | Oct 1981 | A |
4314268 | Yoshioka et al. | Feb 1982 | A |
4317273 | Guterman et al. | Mar 1982 | A |
4322736 | Sasaki et al. | Mar 1982 | A |
4374454 | Jochems | Feb 1983 | A |
4393575 | Dunkley et al. | Jul 1983 | A |
4409434 | Basset et al. | Oct 1983 | A |
4435895 | Parrillo | Mar 1984 | A |
4471376 | Morcom et al. | Sep 1984 | A |
4493740 | Komeda | Jan 1985 | A |
4530150 | Shirato | Jul 1985 | A |
4581628 | Miyauchi et al. | Apr 1986 | A |
4583011 | Pechar | Apr 1986 | A |
4603381 | Guttag et al. | Jul 1986 | A |
4623255 | Suszko | Nov 1986 | A |
4636822 | Codella et al. | Jan 1987 | A |
4727038 | Watabe | Feb 1988 | A |
4727493 | Taylor, Sr. | Feb 1988 | A |
4729001 | Haskell | Mar 1988 | A |
4753897 | Lund et al. | Jun 1988 | A |
4766516 | Ozdemir et al. | Aug 1988 | A |
4771012 | Yabu et al. | Sep 1988 | A |
4799096 | Koeppe | Jan 1989 | A |
4814854 | Tigelaar et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4821085 | Haken et al. | Apr 1989 | A |
4829356 | Arndt | May 1989 | A |
4830974 | Chang et al. | May 1989 | A |
4860084 | Shibata | Aug 1989 | A |
4912053 | Schrantz | Mar 1990 | A |
4927777 | Hsu et al. | May 1990 | A |
4931411 | Tigelaar et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
4939567 | Kenney | Jul 1990 | A |
4962484 | Takashima et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
4975756 | Haken et al. | Dec 1990 | A |
4998151 | Korman et al. | Mar 1991 | A |
5015596 | Toyoda et al. | May 1991 | A |
5016077 | Sato | May 1991 | A |
5030796 | Swanson et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5050123 | Castro | Sep 1991 | A |
5061978 | Mizutani et al. | Oct 1991 | A |
5065208 | Shah et al. | Nov 1991 | A |
5068697 | Noda et al. | Nov 1991 | A |
5070378 | Yamagata | Dec 1991 | A |
5073812 | Shimura | Dec 1991 | A |
5101121 | Sourgen | Mar 1992 | A |
5117276 | Thomas et al. | May 1992 | A |
5120669 | Schrantz | Jun 1992 | A |
5121089 | Larson et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
5121186 | Wong et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
5132571 | McCollum et al. | Jul 1992 | A |
5138197 | Kuwana | Aug 1992 | A |
5146117 | Larson | Sep 1992 | A |
5168340 | Nishimura | Dec 1992 | A |
5177589 | Kobayashi et al. | Jan 1993 | A |
5202591 | Walden | Apr 1993 | A |
5210437 | Sawada et al. | May 1993 | A |
5225699 | Nakamura | Jul 1993 | A |
5227649 | Chapman | Jul 1993 | A |
5231299 | Ning et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
5302539 | Haken et al. | Apr 1994 | A |
5308682 | Morikawa | May 1994 | A |
5309015 | Kuwata et al. | May 1994 | A |
5317197 | Roberts | May 1994 | A |
5336624 | Walden | Aug 1994 | A |
5341013 | Koyanagi et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5345105 | Sun et al. | Sep 1994 | A |
5354704 | Yang et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5369299 | Byrne et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5371390 | Mohsen | Dec 1994 | A |
5371443 | Sun et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5376577 | Roberts et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5378641 | Cheffings | Jan 1995 | A |
5384472 | Yin | Jan 1995 | A |
5384475 | Yahata | Jan 1995 | A |
5399441 | Bearinger et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5404040 | Hsieh et al. | Apr 1995 | A |
5412237 | Komori et al. | May 1995 | A |
5441902 | Hsieh et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5453635 | Hsu | Sep 1995 | A |
5468990 | Daum | Nov 1995 | A |
5475251 | Kuo et al. | Dec 1995 | A |
5506806 | Fukushima | Apr 1996 | A |
5510279 | Chien et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5531018 | Saia et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5539224 | Ema | Jul 1996 | A |
5541614 | Lam et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5571735 | Mogami et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5576988 | Kuo et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5580804 | Joh | Dec 1996 | A |
5585658 | Mukai et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5611940 | Zettler | Mar 1997 | A |
5635749 | Hong | Jun 1997 | A |
5638946 | Zavracky | Jun 1997 | A |
5650340 | Burr et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5675172 | Miyamoto et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5677557 | Wuu et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5679595 | Chen et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5702972 | Tsai et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5719422 | Burr et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5719430 | Goto | Feb 1998 | A |
5721150 | Pasch | Feb 1998 | A |
5744372 | Bulucea | Apr 1998 | A |
5763916 | Gonzalez et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5783375 | Twist | Jul 1998 | A |
5783846 | Baukus et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5789298 | Gardner et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5811340 | Park | Sep 1998 | A |
5821147 | Kizilyalli | Oct 1998 | A |
5821590 | Lee et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5831306 | Gardner et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5834356 | Bothra et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5834809 | Kato et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5838047 | Yamauchi et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5854510 | Sur, Jr. et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5858843 | Doyle et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5866933 | Baukus et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5874328 | Liu et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5877050 | Gardner et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5880503 | Matsumoto et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5888887 | Li et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5891782 | Hsu et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5895241 | Lu et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5909622 | Kadosh et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5920097 | Horne | Jul 1999 | A |
5925914 | Jiang | Jul 1999 | A |
5930663 | Baukus et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5930667 | Oda | Jul 1999 | A |
5933737 | Goto | Aug 1999 | A |
5960291 | Krivokapic | Sep 1999 | A |
5973375 | Baukus et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5977593 | Hara | Nov 1999 | A |
5998257 | Lane et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
5998272 | Ishida et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6010929 | Chapman | Jan 2000 | A |
6020227 | Bulucea | Feb 2000 | A |
6030869 | Odake et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6031272 | Hiroki et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6037627 | Kitamura et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6044011 | Marr | Mar 2000 | A |
6046659 | Loo et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6054659 | Lee et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6057520 | Goodwin-Johansson | May 2000 | A |
6064110 | Baukus et al. | May 2000 | A |
6078080 | Kadosh et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6080614 | Nelson et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6084248 | Inoue | Jul 2000 | A |
6090692 | Song | Jul 2000 | A |
6093609 | Chuang | Jul 2000 | A |
6103563 | Lukanc et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6117762 | Baukus et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6137318 | Takaaki | Oct 2000 | A |
6146952 | Nariman et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6153484 | Donaton et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6154388 | Oh | Nov 2000 | A |
6215158 | Choi | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6242329 | Huster et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6255174 | Yu | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6261912 | Hsiao et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6294816 | Baukus et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6316303 | Lin et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6326675 | Scott et al. | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6337249 | Yamane et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6365453 | Deboer et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6373106 | Maki et al. | Apr 2002 | B2 |
6380041 | Yeap et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6384457 | Tyagi et al. | May 2002 | B2 |
6399452 | Krishnan et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6410413 | Scott et al. | Jun 2002 | B2 |
6455388 | Lai et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6465315 | Yu | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6466489 | Ieong et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6476449 | Lin | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6479350 | Ling et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6503787 | Choi | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6534787 | Hsu | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6566204 | Wang et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6613661 | Baukus | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6653694 | Osanai | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6740942 | Baukus et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6746924 | Lee et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6815816 | Clark, Jr. et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6825530 | Brown et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6833307 | Wristers et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6833589 | Matsuhashi et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6911694 | Negoro et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6919600 | Baukus | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6921690 | Church | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6930361 | Inaba | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6933560 | Lee et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6979606 | Chow | Dec 2005 | B2 |
7012273 | Chen | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7049667 | Chow | May 2006 | B2 |
7091114 | Ito | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7166515 | Clark | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7179712 | Hoefler | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7195266 | Ricke et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7208383 | Weintraub et al. | Apr 2007 | B1 |
7217977 | Chow | May 2007 | B2 |
7242063 | Chow et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7294935 | Chow | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7344932 | Chow | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7514755 | Chow | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7541266 | Chow | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7888213 | Chow | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7935603 | Chow | May 2011 | B1 |
8049281 | Chow | Nov 2011 | B1 |
8168487 | Clark | May 2012 | B2 |
20010042892 | Okada | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020043689 | Matsuoka et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020058368 | Tseng | May 2002 | A1 |
20020096776 | Chow | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020173131 | Clark, Jr. et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020190355 | Baukus et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030057476 | Morita et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030127709 | Lippmann | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030173622 | Porter et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030205816 | Janke | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040030911 | Isozaki | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040051137 | Kitamura | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040061186 | Chow et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040075147 | Ueda et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040099912 | Chow et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040144998 | Chow et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040164361 | Baukus et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040211990 | Asano | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050082625 | Kim | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050230787 | Chow et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20060049449 | Iino | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060071278 | Takao | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060105489 | Rhodes | May 2006 | A1 |
20060157803 | Chow | Jul 2006 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1266875 | Jul 2006 | CN |
0 186 855 | Jul 1986 | EP |
0 364 769 | Apr 1990 | EP |
0 463 373 | Jan 1992 | EP |
0 528 302 | Feb 1993 | EP |
0 585 601 | Mar 1994 | EP |
0 764 985 | Mar 1997 | EP |
0 883 184 | Dec 1998 | EP |
0 920 057 | Jun 1999 | EP |
1 193 758 | Apr 2002 | EP |
1 202 353 | May 2002 | EP |
2 486 717 | Jan 1982 | FR |
S58-016565 | Jul 1982 | JP |
58-190064 | Nov 1983 | JP |
59-035465 | Feb 1984 | JP |
61-147551 | Jul 1986 | JP |
61-201472 | Sep 1986 | JP |
63-129647 | Jun 1988 | JP |
H01-213350 | Aug 1989 | JP |
02-046762 | Feb 1990 | JP |
H02-062118 | Mar 1990 | JP |
02-188944 | Jul 1990 | JP |
02-237038 | Sep 1990 | JP |
H02-237038 | Sep 1990 | JP |
04-028092 | Jan 1992 | JP |
H04-267553 | Sep 1992 | JP |
H05-218849 | Aug 1993 | JP |
H08-274041 | Oct 1996 | JP |
10-256398 | Sep 1998 | JP |
2000-040809 | Feb 2000 | JP |
2000-040810 | Feb 2000 | JP |
331036 | May 1998 | TW |
375766 | Dec 1999 | TW |
526608 | Apr 2003 | TW |
9821734 | May 1998 | WO |
9857373 | Dec 1998 | WO |
00-44012 | Jul 2000 | WO |
0055889 | Sep 2000 | WO |
Entry |
---|
U.S. Appl. No. 09/298,293, filed Apr. 23, 1999, Baukus. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/696,826, filed Oct. 25, 2000, Clark. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/882,892, filed Jun. 15, 2001, Baukus. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/132,523, filed Apr. 24, 2002, Clark. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/635,790, filed Aug. 5, 2003, Chow. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/637,848, filed Aug. 7, 2003, Chow. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/735,841, filed Dec. 12, 2003, Chow. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/789,261, filed Feb. 26, 2004, Baukus. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/881,286, filed Jun. 29, 2004, Chow. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/208,470, filed Aug. 7, 2003, Chow. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/375,846, filed Mar. 14, 2006, Chow. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/710,114, filed Feb. 22, 2007, Chow. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/807,896, filed May 29, 2007, Chow. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/855,005, filed Sep. 13, 2007, Clark. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/932,169, filed Oct. 31, 2007, Chow. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/969,669, filed Jan. 4, 2008, Chow. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/399,628, filed Mar. 6, 2009, Chow. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/949,657, filed Nov. 18, 2010, Chow. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/960,126, filed Dec. 3, 2010, Chow. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/855,005, Sep. 2007, Clark et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/758,792, Jan. 2001, Baukus et al. |
Blythe, et al., “Layout Reconstruction of Complex Silicon Chips” IEEE Journal of Solid State Circuits, vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 138-45(Feb. 1993). |
Frederiksen, T.M., “Standard Circuits in the New CMOS Era” Initiative CMOS Electronics revised edition, pp. 134-146 (Jan. 1989). |
Hodges, et al., Analysis and Design of Digital Integrated Circuits, 2nd edition, McGraw-Hill, p. 353 (1988). |
IBM. Sub—TDB, “Static Ram Double Polysilicon Dynamic Memory Cell with Polysilicon Bit Line”, vol. 21, Issue No. 9, pp. 3828-3831 (Feb. 1979). |
IBM. Sub—TDB, “Static Ram Double Polysilicon Process” vol. 23, Issue No. 8, pp. 3683-3686 (Jan. 1981). |
Larson, L.E., et al., “Microactuators for Gaas-based Microwave Integrated Circuits”, IEEE, pp. 743-746 (1991). |
Lee, “Engineering a Device for Electron-Beam Probing” IEEE Design and Test of Computers, pp. 36-49 (Jun. 1989). |
Ng, K.K., Complete Guide to Semiconductor Devices, Mc-Graw-Hill, pp. 164-165 (1995). |
Sze, S.M, “VLSI Technology”, Mc-Graw-Hill, pp. 99,447, 461-465 (1983). |
Sze, S.M. Ed. “Silicides for Gates and Interconnections”, VLSI Technology, McGraw-Hill, p. 372-380 (1983). |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/391,258, filed Sep. 7, 1999, Baukus. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/758,792, filed Jan. 11, 2001, Baukus. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/828,022, filed Apr. 19, 2004, Chow et al. |
VLSI manufacturing process, pp. 172 and 279, published 1997 in Taiwan (untranslated). |
Office action dated May 28, 2002 from Taiwanese Patent No. 201664 with its English translation. |
Office action mailed on Feb. 8, 2011 for Japanese Patent Application No. 2000-614502 and its English translation. |
Office action dated Mar. 28, 2013 with Search Report from Taiwanese Patent Application No. 096135407 with English translation of Search Report and partial English translation of office action. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11855005 | Sep 2007 | US |
Child | 13423155 | US |