Spring 2006 Yield Management Solutions

Process

64

Reliable, Repeatable Wafer and Tool Dispositioning in 300 mm Fabs

Bruce Johnson, Rebecca Pinto, Ph.D, and Stephen Hiebert , KLA-Tencor Corporation

Advances in wafer fabrication along with rising economic pressures on chipmakers have created greater challenges in the dispositioning of wafers and process tools. Such a climate has rendered it nearly impossible for manual disposition inspection to deliver even adequate results in a manufacturing environment or for process tool requalification. Manual inspectors often miss gross process problems, passing wafers downstream, where they will later be scrapped or create yield loss.Automated disposition, on the other hand, can integrate into a fab’s defect analysis infrastructure to enable better yield learning. These advantages, plus an automated system’s capability for high sampling, make it suitable for a low cost of ownership inspection strategy.

IntroductionAdvanced fabs require accurate and rapid disposition decision-making during manu-facturing, as well as a quick assessment of tool and process module output. Operators at manual or semi-automated inspection stations have historically done much of this, but these methods have been ineffective for quite some time. Manual inspections are expensive, and the results are well known to be unreliable. This is especially true for advanced 300 mm manufacturing, where vanishingly small device features, factory au-tomation, and large wafer surfaces challenge the ability of the operator to assess the wafer and lot; these conditions place large quanti-ties of valuable wafers at risk.

There are cases in most fabs where an opera-tor has missed process or tool errors which have resulted in litho hot spots, CMP un-derpolish, scratches, underetch, splashback, coating failures, and many other types of gross errors. These can happen randomly on one wafer in a lot, on some pattern of wafers within a lot (such as every other wafer due to process tool chamber/stage configura-tion), or on a whole production lot. Most fabs have had significant yield hits from lots

which were, for example, not coated with resist, but which were not recognized or sampled by the inspector and ultimately had to be scrapped. The cost of a small inspection error – missing a significant, but challeng-ing-to-detect process error – can be very high.

In fabs with large product mixes, such as a foundry or a development line, each lot may represent all of the material for a specific customer. The loss of that lot, especially if it happens late in the device manufactur-ing process, can be devastating to both the fab and its relationship with the fab’s customer. For some smaller fabless semiconductor customers, it can almost be fatal because of the cycle time hit on a key part. Yet, these failures do happen with surprising regularity when fabs are not able to sample at the level and sensitivity required to capture critical excursions consistently and early on. Manual inspection has resulted in many cases of missed problems and resultant loss because of its inability to reliably find important defects. Automated inspection, on the other hand, is well suited to perform-ing the disposition job. Its major strengths are:

• Good sensitivity to detect defects of all types

• Consistent results from tool to tool, day to day, and fab to fab

• High throughput to adequately sample every lot

i n s p e c t i o n

65

• Low cost of operation

• Factory automation to work within a fully automated fab

• Detailed, documented results compatible with fab defect analysis systems

This paper examines these aspects of disposition inspec-tion for both manual and automated approaches.

The job of dispositionThe vast majority of production lots are good, and should be passed on to the next processing step. How-ever, every once in a while, there may be a processing problem which impacts any of:

• A large portion of a wafer

• One or several wafers within a lot

• An entire lot

• Multiple lots

These problems may come from the challenging process windows of today’s advanced technology, material prob-lems, process recipe errors, process drift, operator error, or production tool errors.

Dispositioning vs. defect line monitoringThe disposition inspection’s goal is to quickly find these larger problems and to identify if there is an over-all problem with the process which requires attention. It is not the goal of the inspection to find smaller subtle

Figure1.Examplesofproductwaferfrontsidelithoerrorstargetedatdispositioninspection.(Problemsroutinelymissedbyinspectionoperatorsarehighlightedinred.)

Low-overheadautomaticrecipecreation Recipe creation with an automated wafer

and tool disposition system can offer many

economic advantages for a fab:

• Simple, reality-based recipe design and

user interface

• Derivative recipes (layout, layer,

disposition rules)

• Low skill level required, especially for

derivate recipes

• Automated recipe completion at first run

• Consistent, fast results between recipes

Spring 2006 www.kla-tencor.com/magazine

i n s p e c t i o n

Spring 2006 Yield Management Solutions66

problems which are ongoing yield detractors, such as is done with defect line monitor, or with film thickness, overlay error, and CD measurement. These inspections and measurements are typically done on a small statistical sample—two or three wafers per lot--and fed directly into a process control scheme. Most fabs perform auto-mated disposition inspection on every lot since the problems can happen on a lot-to-lot basis and resultin expensive loss. Because it is done on (almost) every lot, it is impor-tant that the inspection also be fast to keep production moving.

Most material will pass. The rejected material may go into one of several paths, depending on the process module and type and severity of problem:

• Rework – often handled by the operator

• Scrap

• Waive – for captures not meet- ing rework or scrap criteria

• Engineering disposition – for issues which the operator might not be positioned to handle

In addition, the disposition result may flag the need to stop the process or production tool, either by a qualified operator or the responsible engineer.

Disposition inspection criteriaThe disposition needs to be accurate and consistent; it should neither reject good material (often called the Alpha risk), nor should it pass bad material (Beta risk). Both errors can be costly. The limitations of manual inspection are known to give it a high Beta risk, and this shows up in higher downstream scrap and yield loss. Automated inspection’s higher capture rate of all defect types improves this, but it should not do this at the cost of higher Alpha risk, which may impact fab productivity. It is important that the disposition inspection be immune to normal process variation which could result in false rejects. Along these lines, it is also useful for the inspection to be able to bin defects according to their level of criticality to yield (i.e., nuisance vs. killer defects). Such a capability can further speed up disposition decision-making. The sample size is also important to both of these risks; the sampling should be statistically valid for the nature of the problems that the inspections target.

The inspection needs to be fast, so that it does not hold up production material, and it must carry a low opera-tional cost to be feasible in a production environment. Yet, enough material must be sampled to have good discrimination and accurate lot disposition.

Figure2.ManualandautomatedViper243Xinspectiontimecomparison.

Integratingwiththeautomatedfactory Even the best manual inspector does not run

on factory automation, and s/he needs to be

in proximity to the wafers, which violates the

goals of a highly automated fab. Automated

inspection, on the other hand, is fully

compatible:

• Automatic material handling

• Remote review

• Status reporting

• Remote host control

• Alarms for wafer and lot results

• Alarms for tool status

i n s p e c t i o n

Spring 2006 www.kla-tencor.com/magazine 67

Finally, the disposition inspection needs to be compatible with the level of factory automa-tion, especially for advanced 300 mm fabs. This is a challenge for manual inspection, since fabs minimize the number of operators on the production floor.1 Material movement to and from the tool, host control, and results integration are all important considerations.

In addition to product disposition, fabs use similar inspection strategies to requalify production tools and cells. After a production tool has been down for maintenance or to cor-rect a problem, it must be requalified before being released back into production. This requalification, depending on the specific pro-cess step, typically includes measurement of the appropriate parameters (overlay and CD for litho, film thickness for films and CMP etc.), microdefect qualification, and gross pro-cess qualification. The requirements described for disposition inspection apply to this tool qualification inspection as well.

These requirements will now be explored in greater detail for manual and automated disposition inspection.

The manufacturing challengeDevice manufacture requires fast, accurate decisions to keep good product moving. Integral to this is high productivity from process tools, so rapid decisions are needed to requalify them periodically or after mainte-nance. In most cases, fabs want to verify that

BACKSIDE DEFECT INSPECTION

Numerous process steps can leave par-ticles on wafer backsides, due to the pro-cess, maintenance or cleaning problems, or handling. When these are carried on to the next step, the backside particles can result in process problems at these subse-quent steps. The most common example is in lithography, where a particle causes a bump on the wafer frontside as the wafer is pulled onto the scanner chuck. The scanner can then have a focus error at that point, resulting in a CD error or pattern failure.

In some cases, the particle will stay with the wafer, but in other cases, it can transfer

to the chuck. The high force of the vacuum pull-down often causes it to almost fuse to the scanner chuck. This results in a hot spot at the same location on each wafer. Once the problem is identified, the scanner must be taken down to clean off the particle or replace the chuck, and a requalification is always required. This scanner can incur significant downtime.

A backside product disposition inspection is typically done at pro-cess steps prior to litho (and other sensitive process steps) to avoid the rework, yield loss, and the hit to scanner productivity. Because the litho process itself can also create backside defects (through splashback, for example), a backside inspection is also typically done as part of the develop inspect disposition.

Based on these issues and customer inputs, optional backside inspection has been added to the KLA-Tencor Viper 2435 automated disposition system. An additional backside stage is joined with the primary scanning stage; the scanning motion of the frontside inspec-tion also scans the backside stage. After a wafer is inspected on the first stage, it is transferred to the second stage where it is scanned simultaneously with the following frontside wafer scan. The back-side stage has its own darkfield illumination and camera to perform this inspection. Because the backside inspection adds a step to the sequence, the system throughput is slightly reduced.

Defect results are shown as an additional channel which may be reviewed just like any other defect, and may be transferred to KLA-Tencor Klarity Defect software. Fabs have used this new capability to identify the cause of hot spots. The above graphic shows an example of a hot spot which was caused by a confirmed backside particle.

This backside inspection is a convenient capability to add to an existing frontside disposition inspection. An alternative to consider where no frontside inspection is being done is to use a KLA-Tencor Surfscan SP1 unpatterned wafer inspection tool with a backside inspection module3.

Wafer backside particle (right side) caused a defocus hot spot on the wafer

frontside. The captured image of the particle is seen at the far right.

Spring 2006 www.kla-tencor.com/magazine

i n s p e c t i o n

Spring 2006 Yield Management Solutions

every production lot is good, paying particular atten-tion to problems which could result in significant yield hits. Because the vast majority of lots are good, the inspection is actually very tedious. The operator expects product to be good, and becomes complacent (or bored), often missing the improperly processed wafers or lot.

While a manual inspector must hunt (often unsuccess-fully) for defects, an automated system can spend more productive time actually viewing the problems found, and making clear and documented disposition decisions. The following bar graph compares the complete cycle time for a manual inspector and an automated disposi-tion tool for a representative case. The result is that a

problem can be identified more quickly with automated disposi-tion, putting less production material at risk.

One operator can run and manage multiple automated disposition tools at the same time, which s/he obviously cannot do for manual inspec-tion. Consequently, from a cost of ownership (CoO) standpoint, operation costs with an automated inspector are approximately 1/3 of those of a manual inspection operator. In addition, the dis-position results are much more consistent than those produced by multiple inspection operators.

Any automated inspection system requires recipes to run. Fabs state that it is necessary to minimize any overhead associated with this disposition activity. Using automated recipe creation (ARC), which draws on recipes already created, most new devices and layers should be completed in well under 10 minutes by an average production operator. Derivative layer recipes are automatically created by the tool at first run. Automated inspection operation should not require an engineer or highly trained technician.

Limitations of manual inspectionMultiple fab studies have shown that manual inspection finds only one-tenth to one-quarter of what automated disposition inspection uncovers. These errors come from spinners, exposure tools, developers, etch tools, polish-ers, other process equipment, and handling. They can be visible to the naked eye or with moderate magnification. But manual inspection completely misses most defects, often because the wafer and inspection conditions are challenging, the operator looks in the wrong place, or the operator is not paying sufficient attention. In many cases, inspection operators have missed the fact that some wafers had no pattern — on the whole lot, even on multiple lots — or the material is not sampled. As auto-mated inspections at ADI (after develop inspect), AEI (after-etch inspect), and after polish have become more routine, it is clear that manual inspection — although relatively low in initial cost — leaves the door wide open for revenue and profitability loss due to increased scrapped wafers and lower yield.

68

2221

19

9

6

43 3 3 3 3

1 13

12

1 10 0 0

10 0 0

Figure4.Manualandautomated(Viper243X)defectcaptureforalltypes

(frontsideinspectiononly).Ineverycase,manualinspectionmisseddefects,and

insomecases,completedefecttypes.Notethatdispositionsbasedonthelow

manualcapturerateswouldresultindownstreamscrapandyieldloss.

1

1 2

3

3 4

4

5 6

Figure3.Acomparisonofmanualandautomated(Viper243X)lotdispositiontimewith300-mmwafersinspectedata

frequencyofsixwafersperlot.Source:Powerchip,fromYMSEuropaposterpaper.

i n s p e c t i o n

Spring 2006 www.kla-tencor.com/magazine

Automated inspection has the advantage of providing real data rather than anecdotal descrip-tions from operators. The real data can then be used to under-stand trends and isolate sources, similar to what is done with micro defect data, allowing quantification and prioritization of problem severity using Klar-ity Defect or alternative analysis systems. In almost all cases, fabs implementing automated inspection of macro defects have been surprised by the extent of defects and process issues, and their newfound ability to respond quickly to fix them.

While the operational costs of both the manual and the auto-mated disposition inspections are relatively low, they are not the most important cost. The main goal of the disposition inspection is to prevent bad material from continuing down the line, where it will either be scrapped or result in yield loss. Since these types of process er-rors can be very large in scope, these costs have been known to be very high. When rework is possible, such as in litho or at some CMP steps, the value of the wafers can even be rescued. The other major goal for disposition inspection is to identify a process tool which is unfit for production. This may be a result of the product wafer inspection, or through a periodic cell monitor.

As seen in Figure 4, manual inspection was found to be inferior in both its sensitivity across all defect types and its ability to even see certain defect types. Each missed problem will move downstream, only to be scrapped later, or rejected as a yield loss.

Cost and benefit of ownership: manual vs. automated inspectionIn summary, the overall cost of manual inspection is higher than that of automated disposition inspection:

• Manual CoO operational cost is higher for a statistically valid sample size

• Cost due to missed defects is higher for manual inspection in losses through scrap and decreased yield.

• Risk of zero-yield lots is higher with manual inspection; this can affect a fab’s relationship with its customer.

• The value of information is greater from the automated disposition inspection.

Table 1 summarizes some additional details of comparison.

Accurate disposition decisionsIdeally, whatever method is used for reaching a disposi-tion, the decision should be as close to the specification as possible. It is sometimes hard to quantify the cor-rectness of decisions. One fab performed an evaluation of two automated inspection tools to see which one best matched the engineer responsible for the process mod-ule. The evaluation was done on product wafers with normal process variation.

ManualDisposition Viper243XDisposition

Inspection area 5 points (< 10%)(operator dependent)

Whole wafer (100%)

Within-lot sampling 3 wafers/lot (10%) Whole lot (100%)

Lot sampling 100% (desired) 100%

Throughput 23-26 wph* 100 wph*

Inspection time/wafer 1-7 to 2.7 minutes*(3 wafers only)*

0.6 minutes*(25 wafers)*

Lot inspection time 5-8 minutes 15 minutes

Frontside illumination Brightfield Brightfield and Darkfield

Device (chip) inspection Yes Yes

Scribe line inspection Limited Yes

Unpatterned area inspection Yes (although often ignored) Yes

Wafer edge exclusion 0 mm 0 mm

Edge bead removal inspection Inconsistent Yes

Backside inspection* Optional Optional

Consistency between operators/tools, and over time

Very poor Very good

Report detail & archive Limited operator note Lot summary, wafer report, gallery report, recipe report

Image save No Wafer images, defect clips

Factory automation No Yes

69

Table1.AcomparisonofmanualandViper2345dispositioninspectionsrevealsthatautomatedinspectionismore

comprehensiveandisfasterindeliveringgo/no-godecisions.*Backsideinspectionrequiresmoretimeperlot.

i n s p e c t i o n

Figure 5 shows the deviation of the two inspec-tors from the disposition decision made by the responsible engineer. In the cases where the other tool found too many defects, it was found that these were not real defects, so the tool would be rejecting a good lot (Alpha risk), or incor-rectly placing it on hold. Where the tool found far fewer defects, it was failing to reject a bad lot (Beta risk); this would result in downstream scrap or yield loss. The 243X disposition decisions closely matched the engineer’s decisions.

Fabs require the capability to fine-tune go/no go disposition rules based on defect distribution, both by size and location. Rules can include zones on the wafer, as well as overall lot defectivity. This helps to optimize both the alpha and beta risks of the disposition decisions. All results must be available for review, and should be able to be sent to the fab defect analysis system for correla-tion and historical analysis.

Litho defocus disposi-tion —— case studiesCollapsing lithographic pro-cess windows mean that there is increasing likelihood of areas of the wafer being out of focus. Defocus can result from scanner errors for a field or within a field, and due to par-ticles on the wafer backside or on the scanner chuck, result-ing in a “hot spot.” These areas of defocus may result in complete pattern failure or a significant change in CD. In most cases, these are very hard to detect on real product wa-fers, but they result in yield loss. In the cases where it is due to a persistent particle on a chuck, every wafer may have yield loss at that location.

An experiment was run to determine the ability of auto-mated and manual inspectors to identify defocus. A metal 1 logic product wafer was cre-ated with fields with known amounts of defocus, and then

70 Spring 2006 Yield Management Solutions

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

--

-

--

-

-

--

-

-

-

-

--

-

-

Figure6.Defocusdetectionthreshold--theViper2435isdemonstratedtobesignificantlymoresensitive.

Programmeddefocussettingsareindicatedonthewafermaps.

Figure5.Fieldcomparisonoftwoautomatedinspectorsinacompetitivehead-to-head,deviation

fromengineerdecision.

i n s p e c t i o n

Spring 2006 www.kla-tencor.com/magazine

inspected by both methods. The results are shown in Figure 6.

The automated tool was found to be significantly more sensitive than the inspection operator. The fab’s process window specification for this layer is 0.1 µm defocus; the automated inspector found 50% of the defective fields at this limit. The inspection operator did not find defocused fields until they were well beyond the spec.

In this case, the defocus covers the full field. Hot spots may be smaller, and the 2435 has been shown to be effective at finding them. Advanced processes are quite sensitive to even small particles on the backside.

In some cases, the backside event is not a particle on a specific wafer, but on the scan-ner chuck. Automated disposition results very quickly indicate the problem, as can be seen in the following lot review screen. In this case, a scanner with twin stages produced a hot spot on every second wafer. This can easily be seen in the cassette map, and is highlighted on the indi-vidual wafer thumbnail results.

Such an inspection result may be used to drive a CD SEM to the specific location and measure the pattern to determine the CD deviation.

While Figure 7 clearly shows the nature of the problem, not all such cases are as clear. A small stage problem may be right on the threshold of the process window, and not always produce

material out of specification. Such a low-level defect may be isolated to its source by stacking the results in the defect analysis system across wafers and even across lots.

CMP disposition – case studiesCMP is a process module which is still seeing ongoing challenges and rapid process develop-ment. Many fabs have implemented automated disposition inspection of macro defects because of the relatively high rate of such defects and be-cause of process instability. As an example, a fab sampled a portion of a Cu CMP lot and found one wafer with underpolish defects, as shown in the following figure. The cassette map shows that wafer 22 was rejected according to the

disposition rules, and the wafer map clearly shows the problem, as does the saved wafer image.

In Figure 8, the CMP polish tool did not flag that there was anything wrong with either the wafer or the lot. The inspection result triggered an inspection of the whole lot, where it was found that four additional wafers were bad.

In Figure 9, it was possible to rework the wafers by send-ing them for additional polishing. This saved scrapping high-value, near-end-of-line wafers.

71

Figure7.Thesamedefocushotspotdetectedonthewafersasindicated2.

Figure8.CuCMPlotsamplewithresidualCudetected.Dispositioninspectionthumbnailsare

shownabove,andthesampledcassettemapistotheleft.

i n s p e c t i o n

Spring 2006 Yield Management Solutions72

In another case (see Figure 10), an excursion was high-lighted during a disposition inspection at metal CMP. Eight full lots (200 wafers) were found to have a similar type of wafer edge defects. Investigation showed that one ECP tool was causing the problem across all the lots.

While the wafers had to be scrapped, the quick recog-nition of the problem allowed the ECP tool to be shut down, minimizing damages to additional lots.

Process flow

Automated disposition inspection fits into the normal process flow, taking the place of the manu-al inspection. Because the system is fully factory automation compliant, it likely fits into the flow more easily than the manual step.

Figure 11 shows an example of how automated disposition inspection can be fit into a litho process flow.

Of course, the disposition inspection may be performed within any sequence, but the above-described flow is the most common BKM (best-known method), following the expected yield and cost cascade. In advanced litho processes, overlay is typically the greatest yield detractor, so it makes sense to do this first. The CD SEM is often the busiest, so any material which can be routed away from it (through rejection at a prior disposi-tion) saves its capacity.

Note that this shows that all three inspections and measurements are performed, but there are layers where neither overlay nor CD measurement are done. These non-critical steps can still have process problems which result in gross process errors (such as no resist or no develop), and should still have a disposition inspection performed.

For each wafer or lot which is rejected, an opera-tor will review the result to determine the course of action. In many fabs, for layers where the cause and fix are clear, the operator may directly take the corrective action, particularly when it involves rework. Usually, however, before a lot is scrapped,

it will go to an engineer for disposition.

Similar process flows have been established for other process modules, with attention to the most cost-effective sequence.

Process tool requalification takes a similar approach, although it may vary depending on whether the qualifi-cation is done on product or test wafers. In litho, for ex-ample, the requalification is typically done with PCM4 (Photo Cell Monitoring) on resist test wafers; these same wafers may be used for the gross error requalification

Figure10.PostCMPdispositioninspectionidentifiedeightlotsofwaferswithedgedamage.

Wafermapsofthefailedlotsareshownabove.

Figure9.CuCMPlotwithresidualCudetectedonfivewafers.Thecassettemapclearlyshows

therejectedwafers.

i n s p e c t i o n

73

CAPTURING ALL DEFECT TYPES

The goal of disposition inspections is to capture all of the types of errors which can happen. There are several is-sues which make this very challenging:

• Defects may have very different reflectivity or scatter- ing profiles. Missing resist, hot spots, copper residual, particles, scratches, and etch errors all look very different from one another.

• Some defects may be uniform, either covering the whole wafer or consistently appearing on a specific location. Manual and some automated inspection may miss these because there is no fixed reference. Problems to address include:

– No resist on a wafer

– No exposure

– No develop

– No etch

– Process window failure which occurs on a particular pattern (in litho, etch, and CMP)

* A wafer (especially 300 mm) is a very large surface to look at for subtle errors.

KLA-Tencor’s Viper 2435 automated disposition system (and its predecessor) is designed to specifically target a wide range of defect types. This is done through several aspects of the design:

• Hardware – optical channels are designed to detect defects with different characteristics:

– Frontside brightfield (direct reflection imaging) for defects which change the appearance,

such as color due to film errors, spin or develop problems, residual pattern, arcing, striations, and backsplash.

– Frontside darkfield (scattered light imaging) for defects which result in changes in scatter- ing, such as scratches, defocus, particles, peeling, pattern collapse, and under etch.

– Backside darkfield for backside particles and damage

These channels are inspected concurrently, maximizing throughput. The frontside inspections are done through two channels, and the backside is inspected while the next wafer is on the frontside stage (discussed in sidebar 1).

• Algorithms – High speed image processing extracts defects from each of the image channels, while suppressing noise from process variations:

– Die-to-die – Detects random defects such as scratches, striations, and others which vary across the wafer. This will also capture defects which repeat from exposure field to exposure

field.

– Field-to-field – Detects additional random defects, including scribe line problems

– Wafer-to-wafer – Wafer reference identifies missing film, uncoated, undeveloped, unetched wafers where the entire wafer processing is incorrect

– EBR – Detects errors in edge bead removal

– Edge Damage Check – Detects problems with the wafer edge and bevel

– Unpatterned or partially patterned area outside the main device array – Detects random and process errors outside the main patterned area

The specialized hardware and algorithms combine to cover a wide range of defect types, giving good sensitivity to the types of problems which fabs need to capture at disposition inspections at litho, etch, CMP, films, and other process modules.

Concurrent brightfield and darkfield channels feed frontside wafer

images to the image processor to capture all defect types.

Spring 2006 www.kla-tencor.com/magazine

i n s p e c t i o n

74

as well. This quickly and accurately qualifies the resist coat, exposure, and develop process. If PWQ5 (Process Window Qualification) is used for the qualification, then additional test or product wafers are processed for the gross defect portion of the requalification.

ConclusionFast, accurate disposition decisions are needed in today’s 300 mm fabs. The disposition decisions require the ability to consistently detect a broad range of defects and process failures on the wafer, at the wafer edge, and even on the backside, at as low a cost as possible. That low cost should not, however, come at the cost of broad defect type capture or a low false count rate, not to mention accuracy. Manual inspection approaches have been shown to be inadequate for both product disposition and process tool requalification, due to their limitations in sensitivity to wide-ranging defect types, in repeatability, and in agreement to engineering decisions. Manual inspection has also been shown to not meet the demands of factory automation and good documentation of the results.

Automated gross production disposition and tool quali-fication have been in use in many wafer fabs, and have been shown to be capable of meeting the requirements of advanced 300 mm fabs. Today’s systems benefit from the learning and development gleaned from prior gen-erations while offering new innovations such as backside inspection. Automated inspection has been shown to be a consistent and reliable tool for fast disposition in litho, CMP, etch, and other process modules. Further-more, automated disposition inspection in fabs has been shown to result in cost savings from reduced scrap and improved yield, and through increased fab productivity.

AcknowledgementThe authors would like to thank Scott Ashkenaz for his contributions to this article.

References1.ElectronicNews,“AutomationtoProliferateinIntelManufacturing,” December2005

2.KLA-Tencor,Think Shrink,2004

3.KLA-Tencor,Start Yield Enhancement from the Wafer Backside,2005

Spring 2006 Yield Management Solutions

Overlay Viper 243X CD SEM

IN or OUT Spec?

Rework or feedback Pass

Hold

Pass Wafer Out

Operator reviewfor �rst �lter out

is Previous / Current Layer?

Scrap

Waive

Notes on Host SW

Pass Pass or Fail Spec? IN or OUT Spec?

CL

PL

Engineer dispositionFor �nal decision

or stop excursion Alert Monitor 100% wafer

Rework or feedback

Rework or feedback

Pass

Next step

Stepper / Track

Figure11.Lithodispositionprocessflowwith2435performingdefectdisposition.

i n s p e c t i o n

Please output this color block with ad for refernce

➤

➤