Kenneth M. Kramer
Hewlett-Packard
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Kenneth M. Kramer.
Emerging Lithographic Technologies IX | 2005
William M. Tong; Scott D. Hector; Gun Young Jung; Wei Wu; James E. Ellenson; Kenneth M. Kramer; Timothy S. Hostetler; Susan K. Richards; R. Stanley Williams
Nanoimprint lithography is a contact-lithography technology invented in 1996 as a low-cost alternative to photolithography for researchers who need high resolution patterning. Initially perceived as a trailing-edge technology for low-cost device fabrication, it has been recently demonstrated to achieve sub-10 nm resolution and alignment, which equal or surpass even the most advanced photolithography today. At Hewlett-Packard, we have successfully used it to fabricate switchable molecular memory arrays with a dimension of 65 nm half pitch. Nanoimprint has been placed on the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS) as a candidate for next-generation lithography (NGL) for insertion in the 32 nm node in Y2013. The switch from using light to using contact to pattern will indeed bring new challenges, the most important of which are alignment and the 1x mask/template. For alignment, one imprint tool maker has achieved alignment of +/-7 nm 3 sigma using Moire patterns. For template fabrication, the lack of OPC and other sub-resolution features produced large savings in patterning, but it is nearly cancelled out by the need for more aggressive inspection because of the smaller tolerable defect size. The two combined to make the predicted cost of nanoimprint template to be similar to photomasks for 45-nm half pitch. At 32-nm half pitch, EUVL masks do not have complicated sub-resolution features and are predicted to be cheaper than comparable nanoimprint templates provided that the former’s defect levels can be reduced to what is required for economical manufacturing. In both cases, the challenges are not insurmountable and solutions are being actively pursued. However, if nanoimprint is indeed the disruptive technology to photolithography, it needs to take its initial aim at the low-end market rather than mount a frontal challenge at semiconductor manufacturing, which is the high-margin customers that photolithography will pursue and protect at all cost. The recent development in nanotechnology will lead to the commercialization of a new class of nanoscale devices requiring a high-resolution lithographic technique that does not have all the functionalities of photolithography. This approach will provide an initial customer base for nanoimprint to develop and improve and position it to challenge photolithography in the distant future.
Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering | 2005
Susan S. MacDonald; David Mellenthin; Kevin Rentzsch; Kenneth M. Kramer; James E. Ellenson; Tim Hostetler; Ron Enck
Increasing numbers of MEMS, photonic, and integrated circuit manufacturers are investigating the use of Nano-imprint Lithography or Step and Flash Imprint Lithography (SFIL) as a lithography choice for making various devices and products. Their main interests in using these technologies are the lack of aberrations inherent in traditional optical reduction lithography, and the relative low cost of imprint tools. Since imprint templates are at 1X scale, the small sizes of these structures have necessitated the use of high-resolution 50KeV, and 100KeV e-beam lithography tools to build these templates. For MEMS and photonic applications, the structures desired are often circles, arches, and other non-orthogonal shapes. It has long been known that both 50keV, and especially 100keV e-beam lithography tools are extremely accurate, and can produce very high resolution structures, but the trade off is long write times. The main drivers in write time are shot count and stage travel. This work will show how circles and other non-orthogonal shapes can be produced with a 50KeV Variable Shaped Beam (VSB) e-beam lithography system using unique pattern transforms and primitive shapes, while keeping the shot count and write times under control. The quality of shapes replicated into the resist on wafer using an SFIL tool will also be presented.
Archive | 2004
James C. Mckinnell; Chien-Hua Chen; Kenneth Diest; Kenneth M. Kramer; Daniel A. Kearl
Archive | 2009
Adel Jilani; Tony S. Cruz-Uribe; Martha A. Truninger; Kenneth M. Kramer
Archive | 2001
Jeffrey S. Obert; Eric L. Nikkel; Kenneth M. Kramer; Steven D Leith
Archive | 2002
Chien-Hua Chen; Kenneth M. Kramer
Archive | 2000
Chien-Hua Chen; Kenneth M. Kramer
Archive | 2005
Kenneth M. Kramer; Mark David Johnson
Archive | 2006
Steven D Leith; Jeffrey S. Obert; Eric L. Nikkel; Kenneth M. Kramer
Archive | 2002
Dennis Lazaroff; Kenneth M. Kramer; James E. Ellenson; Neal W. Meyer; David Punsalan; Kurt Ulmer; Peter Fricke; Andrew Koll; Andrew L. Van Brocklin