Shipley 1805 and developer 351

Lan Zhang lanzhangus at
Tue Apr 13 08:41:09 PDT 2004

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.

Mary Tang <mtang at> 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 X. Tang, Ph.D.
Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070
Stanford, CA 94305
mtang at

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the specmat mailing list