Thoughts SNF Equipment

Greg Kovacs kovacs at cis.Stanford.EDU
Fri Jan 12 10:08:19 PST 2001


Jim,
This is an excellent, and well-thought-out document, and I think it will 
serve us well.   I agree with you regarding pressures forcing us toward 
6" wafers and at the same time will continue to track down leads for 
keeping the 4" stuff up until we make the switch.  My comment about 
"pizza sized wafers" was, I think, reacted to rather strongly given the 
intent.  My point was really that the whole "Moore's Law" business is not 
for universities.  I personally think we may have already gone too far 
with the big Canon litho system, but usage statistics will speak for 
themselves.  

What lab users seem to want to do is make devices that work and, given a 
realistic number of litho steps, have a yield greater than zero.  My big 
concern is optimizing learning in training students in the SNF and 
minimizing suffering due to equipment problems.  I think we can do a lot 
in that area.

If 6" is a stable size, I'm pleased as can be, and I think everyone else 
will be too.  If we can make one jump to 6" and not engage in trying to 
chase larger wafer sizes and core optical lithography tools that go 
beyond majority needs, we should be in good shape strategically.   Then 
we can move our attention toward shoring up our resources and improving 
user success and staff satisfaction (coupled things).

I didn't mean to offend anyone with the pizza comment.  I think I was 
still hungry.

Thanks Jim!

Best,
Greg


>All,
>
>Attached are some of my equipment ideas for SNF. In particlar, I focus on
>the 6 inch wafer issue.
>
>			Jim 	
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>James P. McVittie	                Senior Research Scientist
>Allen Center for Integrated Systems     jmcvittie at stanford.edu
>Stanford University             	Tel: (650) 725-3640	
>Rm. 336, 330 Serra Mall			Fax: (650) 723-4659
>Stanford, CA 94305-4075	
>



More information about the snf-adcom mailing list