Shipley 1805 and developer 351

[Lan Zhang]

Mary and John,
 
Thanks for the input.  Can MF319 be used instead?  It is listed in MSDS binder.  The reason for using S1805 is that a thin resist (0.5um) is preferred to achieve 0.5um line width with contact aligner(0.5" wafer).  I try to avoid to use thinner to keep process repeatable.  In my past experience, I can achieve 0.3um linewith by controlling the develop process using combination of 1805/351.  I welcome any suggestion and intend to use SNF existing process.
 
Thanks,
Lan

Mary Tang <mtang at snf.stanford.edu> wrote:
Goodness, I quite agree, having once worked in a lab that used similar
stuff. Lan, is there a compelling, technical reason why you want 351?
Is S1805 a dyed resist? Is 351 recommended for S1805? Have you
considered using S3617, which is our standard dyed resist?

Mary



--
Mary X. Tang, Ph.D.
Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070
Stanford, CA 94305
(650)723-9980
mtang at stanford.edu
http://snf.stanford.edu



		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20040413/73eb4159/attachment.html>