{"title":"电子束掩模修复的沉积耐久性","authors":"T. Krome, C. Holfeld, Tim Göhler, P. Nesládek","doi":"10.1117/12.2323905","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The durability of deposition repairs of two different e-beam mask repair tools has been examined and compared in this work. To obtain this data, clear defects on production masks have been repaired with both tools. In between these repairs the mask was used for production and gathered exposure dose accordingly. The increase of transmission and hence the degradation of the deposition has been determined by AIMSTM. We could confirm that one tool/process shows better stability of the depositions than the other.","PeriodicalId":287066,"journal":{"name":"European Mask and Lithography Conference","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deposition durability of e-beam mask repair\",\"authors\":\"T. Krome, C. Holfeld, Tim Göhler, P. Nesládek\",\"doi\":\"10.1117/12.2323905\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The durability of deposition repairs of two different e-beam mask repair tools has been examined and compared in this work. To obtain this data, clear defects on production masks have been repaired with both tools. In between these repairs the mask was used for production and gathered exposure dose accordingly. The increase of transmission and hence the degradation of the deposition has been determined by AIMSTM. We could confirm that one tool/process shows better stability of the depositions than the other.\",\"PeriodicalId\":287066,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Mask and Lithography Conference\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Mask and Lithography Conference\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2323905\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Mask and Lithography Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2323905","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The durability of deposition repairs of two different e-beam mask repair tools has been examined and compared in this work. To obtain this data, clear defects on production masks have been repaired with both tools. In between these repairs the mask was used for production and gathered exposure dose accordingly. The increase of transmission and hence the degradation of the deposition has been determined by AIMSTM. We could confirm that one tool/process shows better stability of the depositions than the other.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
