Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T23:44:19.761Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Breaking the Resolution Barrier in the Scanning Electron Microscope

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

William Vanderlinde
William Vanderlinde*
Affiliation:
Laboratory for Physical Sciences College Park, Maryland, USA
*
[email protected]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Everyone always wants better resolution from his or her microscopes. With semiconductor manufacturers now shipping product with sub-100 nm gates, measuring features and defects has become a challenge, even for the scanning electron microscope (SEM). For metrology below 100 nm, some manufacturers have begun routinely using TEM (transmission electron microscopy) which is tedious and expensive. As a microscopist, I find this quite disappointing since, in principle, the SEM should be capable of providing more than enough resolution well below 100 nm. Why is it that SEMs with 1 nm spot size can’t provide adequate resolution for 100 nm gates? It turns out that at very high magnification, SEM resolution is limited by how the electron beam interacts with the sample rather than simply the spot size of the beam.

Type
Research Article
Information
Microscopy Today , Volume 16 , Issue 6 , November 2008 , pp. 28 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2008

References

1. Tsung, L., Anciso, A., Turner, R., Dixon, T., and Holloway, N., Proceedings of ISTFA 2001, p. 299-302 (2001).Google Scholar
2.W. E. Vanderlinde, Proceedings of ISTFA 2002 pp. 77-85 (2002).Google Scholar
3. Coyne, E., Proceedings of ISTFA 2002 pp. 93-99 (2002).Google Scholar
4. Tracy, B., Proceedings of ISTFA 2002, pp. 69-76 (2002).Google Scholar
5.W. E. Vanderlinde, Proceedings of ISTFA 2003 pp. 158-165 (2003).Google Scholar
6. Goldstein, Joseph I., Newbury, Dale E., Echlin, Patrick, Joy, David C., Romig, A. D. Jr., Lyman, Charles E., Fiori, Charles, and Lifshin, Eric, Scanning Electron Microscopy and X-ray Microanalysis, A Textbook for Biologists, Materials Scientists, and Geologists, 2nd Edition, Plenum, New York, 1992, p. 219.Google Scholar
7.Private communication, Peter Gnauck, LEO Electron Microscopy GmbH.Google Scholar
8.Goldstein, et al., p. 89.Google Scholar
9.Goldstein, et al., p. 269.Google Scholar
10. Wells, O.C., Appl. Phys. Lett. 19 (7) p. 232-235 (1971).Google Scholar
11. Wells, O.C., Appl. Phys. Lett. 49 (13) p. 764-766 (1986).Google Scholar
12. Wells, O.C., LeGoues, F.K., and Hodgson, R.T., Appl. Phys. Lett. 56 (23) p. 2351-2353 (1990).Google Scholar
13. Broers, A.N., Panessa, B.J., and Gennaro, J.F., Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Scanning Electron Microscope Symposium (SEM/1975), IIT Research Institute, Chicago, p. 233-242 (1975).Google Scholar