From mahnaz at stanford.edu  Thu Sep  2 11:40:15 2010
From: mahnaz at stanford.edu (Mahnaz Mansourpour)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 11:40:15 -0700
Subject: Fwd: Request for chemicals
Message-ID: <4C7FEF8F.4080304@stanford.edu>

  Hi

I am forwarding this from Vasanth behalf, he cc'd it to specmat, not 
sure if you have gotten it?
One thing though  is that they are 8" and he is very anxious to start 
the process.

mahnaz
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Request for chemicals
Date: 	Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:38:51 -0700
From: 	Vasanth <vasanthvj4u at gmail.com>
To: 	mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu
CC: 	specmat at snf.stanford.edu



Hello,


Contact Details:
Name: Vasanth Jayaraman
Phone: 315-246-3588
Email: vasanthvj4u at gmail.com <mailto:vasanthvj4u at gmail.com>
Company: HealthTell
Coral Login: vasanthvj4u

I have attended the lab tour at SNF on Monday, 23rd August and have 
already set up an account with SNF. I would like to explain our process.
  I have attached the excel sheet that contains the details about our 
process and the chemicals we would need to complete the same.
Kindly let me know how we can proceed with regards to setting up our 
process at SNF.

Thanking you.

Regards,

Vasanth


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100902/2e323adb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Stanford_request.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 43520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100902/2e323adb/attachment.xls>

From mtang at stanford.edu  Thu Sep  2 15:51:58 2010
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 15:51:58 -0700
Subject: Fwd: Request for chemicals
In-Reply-To: <23533_1283452816_4C7FEF90_23533_3059_1_4C7FEF8F.4080304@stanford.edu>
References: <23533_1283452816_4C7FEF90_23533_3059_1_4C7FEF8F.4080304@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4C802A8E.7060503@stanford.edu>

Hi all --

Some comments on the procedure are in RED on the spreadsheet.  My main 
concern is the space.  Multiple beakers for handling chemicals for 8" 
wafers is difficult at wbgeneral and wbsolvent.  I would suggest that 
the solvent bench in the wafersaw room might be more appropriate -- 
although not cleanroom, it's got more space and less traffic.  The 
protocols don't require the features that require enabling on the 
solvent bench.  The wbgaas bench might be better for space considerations.

My other question is the concentration of TFA used.  The TFA should be 
stored in the chemicals passthrough.  It will likely be a small bottle 
(or it should) so I'd ask it be stored in a bottle carrier (labeled on 
the outside) so that no one inadvertently stores a small bottle of an 
incompatible next to it.   The EDA should be stored in the flammables 
cabinet.  I think it would be better that the mixed chemicals be made up 
so that there's just enough for the experiment -- we should not have to 
accommodate storage for these chemical mixtures.

Uli, what do you think?


Mary

Mahnaz Mansourpour wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am forwarding this from Vasanth behalf, he cc'd it to specmat, not 
> sure if you have gotten it?
> One thing though  is that they are 8" and he is very anxious to start 
> the process.
>
> mahnaz
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	Request for chemicals
> Date: 	Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:38:51 -0700
> From: 	Vasanth <vasanthvj4u at gmail.com>
> To: 	mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu
> CC: 	specmat at snf.stanford.edu
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
>
> Contact Details:
> Name: Vasanth Jayaraman
> Phone: 315-246-3588
> Email: vasanthvj4u at gmail.com <mailto:vasanthvj4u at gmail.com>
> Company: HealthTell
> Coral Login: vasanthvj4u
>
> I have attended the lab tour at SNF on Monday, 23rd August and have 
> already set up an account with SNF. I would like to explain our process.
>  I have attached the excel sheet that contains the details about our 
> process and the chemicals we would need to complete the same.
> Kindly let me know how we can proceed with regards to setting up our 
> process at SNF. 
>
> Thanking you.
>
> Regards,
>
> Vasanth
>
>


-- 
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100902/3490ae3a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Stanford_request-1.xls
Type: application/vnd.ms-excel
Size: 51200 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100902/3490ae3a/attachment.xls>

From mtang at stanford.edu  Thu Sep  2 16:50:33 2010
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:50:33 -0700
Subject: Fwd: Request for chemicals
In-Reply-To: <2890_1283467919_4C802A8F_2890_1353_1_4C802A8E.7060503@stanford.edu>
References: <23533_1283452816_4C7FEF90_23533_3059_1_4C7FEF8F.4080304@stanford.edu> <2890_1283467919_4C802A8F_2890_1353_1_4C802A8E.7060503@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4C803849.4000004@stanford.edu>

Hi Mahnaz --

Will you be contacting Vasanth about these concerns?  If so, could you 
also please ask for detailed procedures?  I'm wondering what other 
resources they may require (pH probe, for example) and how long these 
procedures take (some coupling procedures take hours and require inert 
atmosphere - I don't think this is the case, but sometimes we have to 
ask.)  By the way, do you know what other kind of processing they expect 
to do at SNF? 

Mary

Mary Tang wrote:
> Hi all --
>
> Some comments on the procedure are in RED on the spreadsheet.  My main 
> concern is the space.  Multiple beakers for handling chemicals for 8" 
> wafers is difficult at wbgeneral and wbsolvent.  I would suggest that 
> the solvent bench in the wafersaw room might be more appropriate -- 
> although not cleanroom, it's got more space and less traffic.  The 
> protocols don't require the features that require enabling on the 
> solvent bench.  The wbgaas bench might be better for space considerations.
>
> My other question is the concentration of TFA used.  The TFA should be 
> stored in the chemicals passthrough.  It will likely be a small bottle 
> (or it should) so I'd ask it be stored in a bottle carrier (labeled on 
> the outside) so that no one inadvertently stores a small bottle of an 
> incompatible next to it.   The EDA should be stored in the flammables 
> cabinet.  I think it would be better that the mixed chemicals be made 
> up so that there's just enough for the experiment -- we should not 
> have to accommodate storage for these chemical mixtures.
>
> Uli, what do you think?
>
>
> Mary
>
> Mahnaz Mansourpour wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> I am forwarding this from Vasanth behalf, he cc'd it to specmat, not 
>> sure if you have gotten it?
>> One thing though  is that they are 8" and he is very anxious to start 
>> the process.
>>
>> mahnaz
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: 	Request for chemicals
>> Date: 	Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:38:51 -0700
>> From: 	Vasanth <vasanthvj4u at gmail.com>
>> To: 	mahnaz at snf.stanford.edu
>> CC: 	specmat at snf.stanford.edu
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>>
>> Contact Details:
>> Name: Vasanth Jayaraman
>> Phone: 315-246-3588
>> Email: vasanthvj4u at gmail.com <mailto:vasanthvj4u at gmail.com>
>> Company: HealthTell
>> Coral Login: vasanthvj4u
>>
>> I have attended the lab tour at SNF on Monday, 23rd August and have 
>> already set up an account with SNF. I would like to explain our process.
>>  I have attached the excel sheet that contains the details about our 
>> process and the chemicals we would need to complete the same.
>> Kindly let me know how we can proceed with regards to setting up our 
>> process at SNF. 
>>
>> Thanking you.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Vasanth
>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> 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
>   


-- 
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



From mahnaz at stanford.edu  Fri Sep  3 09:51:20 2010
From: mahnaz at stanford.edu (Mahnaz Mansourpour)
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2010 09:51:20 -0700
Subject: Fwd: Re: some concerns
Message-ID: <4C812788.90107@stanford.edu>



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: some concerns
Date: 	Fri, 3 Sep 2010 09:29:46 -0700
From: 	Vasanth <vasanthvj4u at gmail.com>
To: 	Mahnaz Mansourpour <mahnaz at stanford.edu>



Hello Mahnaz,
The procedure that I have explained to you is all that we would be doing 
at SNF. We would also be doing chrome etching.
There are no other resources that we would be needing.
The procedure for coupling that I explained there would take 3 hours on 
the whole and does not require an inert atmosphere.
As I have explained in the procedure, we would need to use a 110degree 
Nitrogen Bake oven.
With regards to the size of the substrate, I assure you that we would be 
very particular about safety and would use the right vessels to carry 
out the process.

Thanks and regards,

Vasanth
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Mahnaz Mansourpour <mahnaz at stanford.edu 
<mailto:mahnaz at stanford.edu>> wrote:

      Hi

    I like to know if that is all you will be doing with regard to your
    procedure you have sent me.  I'm wondering what other resources you
      may require (pH probe, for example) and how long these procedures
    take (some coupling procedures take hours and require inert
    atmosphere, is this the case?
    Secondly, I do have to say that the size of your substrate is a concern.

    mahnaz


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100903/41d6b431/attachment.html>

From jprovine at stanford.edu  Tue Sep 14 21:51:29 2010
From: jprovine at stanford.edu (J Provine)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:51:29 -0700
Subject: cleanliness/semi-cleanliness specifications
Message-ID: <AANLkTimHkQoEdXmhewnz4_NW8z+LM1fzDrhyuqpxrPH8@mail.gmail.com>

hi specmat,
what are the numbers associated with clean and semi-clean status in the snf.
 ie what density of  trace contaminants are allowed?  i tried to find this
information on the snf website but to no success.  i remember some of these
numbers being presented at a clean-tamination meeting last year.

for instance, two questions have arisen recently concerning the savannah:
1) clean wafer goes in...how can we verify that it is clean or semi-clean
coming out?  what number do we need to hit with TXRF or other methods.

2) a user can purchase W with "low alkali content" from a company.  they
promise <20ppm of alkalis in the W filament (most of the contamination is
likely K).  is that semi-clean?

j
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100914/5fd1850b/attachment.html>

From mtang at stanford.edu  Tue Sep 14 22:41:14 2010
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 22:41:14 -0700
Subject: cleanliness/semi-cleanliness specifications
In-Reply-To: <2530_1284526296_4C9050D7_2530_2865_1_AANLkTimHkQoEdXmhewnz4_NW8z+LM1fzDrhyuqpxrPH8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2530_1284526296_4C9050D7_2530_2865_1_AANLkTimHkQoEdXmhewnz4_NW8z+LM1fzDrhyuqpxrPH8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4C905C7A.2060507@stanford.edu>

  Hi J --

Excellent question, which is basically "how good is good?"  I'm no 
expert and will defer to others on this committee who have more 
experience than I.  However, I have tried to learn and have had long 
discussions, mostly with Jim McV and Baylor Triplett about this.  Baylor 
once showed us a lot of data from Intel, which spent a lot of time 
trying to figure this out.  Basically, the data showed that you can 
think of contamination as a defect density -- then "good" or "bad" is 
based on the area and complexity of your device.  Counterintuitively, 
this means if you are making only a few nanoscale transistors (a few 
masks, devices a few microns in size) contamination is much less of a 
problem than if you are making conventional CMOS chip.

So, "good" is relative.  If you are making detectors, it's a different 
answer than if you are making an EE412 chip or some nanotransistors.

The criterion that I believe we've been using is a sort of "do no harm" 
kind of approach.  Basically, if contaminant appears at or below the 
detection level of the Evans TXRF system, then it's not considered a 
problem.  That said, it is also important to consider the possible 
contaminants.  At Evans, typically the sources used for TXRF are 
molybdenum and tungsten.  The W source has better sensitivity to lower 
atomic weight (like Fe) whereas the Mo source is better for higher 
atomic weights (like Au.)  When in doubt, people run both -- although in 
many cases, it's a matter of looking at the possible sources of 
contaminants and then looking for them.  So, if it's a metal deposition 
system where a lot of gold is deposited, Au should be one of the 
elements covered.  For the Evans systems, the typical limit of detection 
of K is around 10^10 atoms per cm2.  If your W has 20 ppm K and silicon 
is about 10^16 atoms/cm2, this is about 10^10 which strikes me as being 
at or around the limit of detection.  This may very well be how they can 
promise <20 ppm of alkali metals.  Please double-check these 
back-of-the-envelope numbers with Evans or other SpecMat members.

As for contamination, Jim always says "look for the mechanism of 
transfer."  The best mechanism of transfer is shared chemicals at a wet 
station.  Unless contamination is really gross, hard surfaces like wafer 
chucks or quartzware do not typically transfer contamination very 
effectively.  I suspect ALD will not have quite the range of concerns 
for contamination transfer that other stations are scrutinized for.

We've talked about stretching our contamination policy for years, but 
have faced an uphill battle with the lab community on established 
tools.  It should be a lot easier to establish different rules with new 
tools and a new community of users.  With ALD, there is a lot of 
opportunity to stretch these contamination definitions.

Sorry, I don't think I answered your question but had a good rant.

M

On 9/14/2010 9:51 PM, J Provine wrote:
> hi specmat,
> what are the numbers associated with clean and semi-clean status in 
> the snf.  ie what density of  trace contaminants are allowed?  i tried 
> to find this information on the snf website but to no success.  i 
> remember some of these numbers being presented at a clean-tamination 
> meeting last year.
>
> for instance, two questions have arisen recently concerning the savannah:
> 1) clean wafer goes in...how can we verify that it is clean or 
> semi-clean coming out?  what number do we need to hit with TXRF or 
> other methods.
>
> 2) a user can purchase W with "low alkali content" from a company. 
>  they promise <20ppm of alkalis in the W filament (most of the 
> contamination is likely K).  is that semi-clean?
>
> j



From hyunjoo at stanford.edu  Thu Sep 16 15:51:10 2010
From: hyunjoo at stanford.edu (Hyunjoo Jenny Lee)
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Request for an approval for new polyimides
In-Reply-To: <832821754.130835.1284676253881.JavaMail.root@zm03.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <353296920.131479.1284677470575.JavaMail.root@zm03.stanford.edu>

Contact Information: Jenny Lee, hyunjoo, 650-644-5800, hyunjoo at stanford.edu, PI: Pierre Khuri-Yakub

Material: Polyimide in powder format (MSDS for each compounds attached) mixed in Xylene.

   1. Copolyimide (6FDA:BTDA:3MPD) 
   2. Homopolyimide(6FDA:4MPD)
   3. PNVP (poly(N-vinylpyrrolidone)

   * 6FDA: Hexafluoroisopropylidene diphthalic anhydride (CAS: 1107-00-2)
   * BTDA: 3,3',4,4'-Benzophenonetetracarboxylic dianhydride (CAS: 2421-28-5)
   * 3MPD: 2,4,6-Trimethyl-m-phenylenediamine (CAS: 3102-70-3)
   * 4MPD: 2,3,5,6-Tetramethyl-1,4-phenylenediamine (CAS: 3102-87-2)
   * PNVP: POLY(VINYL PYRROLIDONE) (CAS: 9003-39-8)

Note: Individual monomers are already synthesized into the 1 and 2 polymers by this company. The polyimides are stored in glass bottles and stable. Also, I have tried mixing these polyimides in chloroform and the mixtures were stable, no-reaction, just mixed. In SNF, these polyimides will be mixed with Xylene instead.

Vendor: Adherent Technologies, Inc. Development Laboratories, 11208 Cochiti SE, Albuquerque, NM  87123, Phone: (505) 346-1688 

Reason for request: We need functionalize our device by spin-coating thin (40~50nm) polymer layer on top of our device. 

Process Flow: Spin-coat on Headway2 on small silicon pieces or our 2mm-by-5mm device pieces fabricated at SNF, cure on litho hotplate, UV-Cure, and possibly long-bake in an oven. 

Amount: All polyimides are in powder format and amount is restricted below 5g. For each mixture, max 0.1~0.5g of powder will be mixed with Xylene. If it is not allowed to bringing in them in powder format, I can bring them in pre-mixed in Xylene in solution format. Please advise on the acceptable procedure recommended by SNF.

Storage: No need to store them in SNF.

Disposal: Very tiny amount will be dropped on our 2mm x 5mm device pieces for spin-coating. So only small amount will be placed on the aluminum foil around the headway. Those foil with residues can be placed in a zip-lock for disposal if required. 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 3MPD_MSDS_Sheet.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 25500 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100916/ba299b33/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 4MPD_MSDS_Sheet.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 154051 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100916/ba299b33/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 6-FDA_Tech_Sheet_18march2010.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 21820 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100916/ba299b33/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BTDA_MSDS_Sheet.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 59320 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100916/ba299b33/attachment-0003.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PNVP_MSDS_Sheet.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 23908 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100916/ba299b33/attachment-0004.pdf>

From jprovine at stanford.edu  Fri Sep 17 08:52:56 2010
From: jprovine at stanford.edu (J Provine)
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 08:52:56 -0700
Subject: cleanliness/semi-cleanliness specifications
In-Reply-To: <4C905C7A.2060507@stanford.edu>
References: <2530_1284526296_4C9050D7_2530_2865_1_AANLkTimHkQoEdXmhewnz4_NW8z+LM1fzDrhyuqpxrPH8@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C905C7A.2060507@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=a=Vgg18T-XjO8C_mF9JF67L5jX1DWuqoXG3B_@mail.gmail.com>

thank you, mary.  is anyone else able to weigh in?
i agree very much with mary about the need to stretch the contamination
policy from its current state asap.  however, as is the case with the
savannah ald there isn't much stretching happening with new tools because
users invariably want to be able to take wafers to other tools.  if those
other tools are mired in the old/current system then the new tools get
funneled toward it as well.

so, toward this line, let's look into receiving txrf data for films
deposited in the savannah and compare that to control wafers to  determine
cleanliness.  we can also compare to wafers coming from other classified
machines and after coating different substrates (like the W w/ <20ppm K in
question).  what was the process for the spectrum ald to be classified as
clean?

if we can make the ald more like litho (what goes in is what comes out), it
would at least not show up as a new cleanliness issue.  this maybe too
aggressive, but if it can bounce back and forth between clean and semiclean
that would be a huge step forward.

j

On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Mary Tang <mtang at stanford.edu> wrote:

>  Hi J --
>
> Excellent question, which is basically "how good is good?"  I'm no expert
> and will defer to others on this committee who have more experience than I.
>  However, I have tried to learn and have had long discussions, mostly with
> Jim McV and Baylor Triplett about this.  Baylor once showed us a lot of data
> from Intel, which spent a lot of time trying to figure this out.  Basically,
> the data showed that you can think of contamination as a defect density --
> then "good" or "bad" is based on the area and complexity of your device.
>  Counterintuitively, this means if you are making only a few nanoscale
> transistors (a few masks, devices a few microns in size) contamination is
> much less of a problem than if you are making conventional CMOS chip.
>
> So, "good" is relative.  If you are making detectors, it's a different
> answer than if you are making an EE412 chip or some nanotransistors.
>
> The criterion that I believe we've been using is a sort of "do no harm"
> kind of approach.  Basically, if contaminant appears at or below the
> detection level of the Evans TXRF system, then it's not considered a
> problem.  That said, it is also important to consider the possible
> contaminants.  At Evans, typically the sources used for TXRF are molybdenum
> and tungsten.  The W source has better sensitivity to lower atomic weight
> (like Fe) whereas the Mo source is better for higher atomic weights (like
> Au.)  When in doubt, people run both -- although in many cases, it's a
> matter of looking at the possible sources of contaminants and then looking
> for them.  So, if it's a metal deposition system where a lot of gold is
> deposited, Au should be one of the elements covered.  For the Evans systems,
> the typical limit of detection of K is around 10^10 atoms per cm2.  If your
> W has 20 ppm K and silicon is about 10^16 atoms/cm2, this is about 10^10
> which strikes me as being at or around the limit of detection.  This may
> very well be how they can promise <20 ppm of alkali metals.  Please
> double-check these back-of-the-envelope numbers with Evans or other SpecMat
> members.
>
> As for contamination, Jim always says "look for the mechanism of transfer."
>  The best mechanism of transfer is shared chemicals at a wet station.
>  Unless contamination is really gross, hard surfaces like wafer chucks or
> quartzware do not typically transfer contamination very effectively.  I
> suspect ALD will not have quite the range of concerns for contamination
> transfer that other stations are scrutinized for.
>
> We've talked about stretching our contamination policy for years, but have
> faced an uphill battle with the lab community on established tools.  It
> should be a lot easier to establish different rules with new tools and a new
> community of users.  With ALD, there is a lot of opportunity to stretch
> these contamination definitions.
>
> Sorry, I don't think I answered your question but had a good rant.
>
> M
>
>
> On 9/14/2010 9:51 PM, J Provine wrote:
>
>> hi specmat,
>> what are the numbers associated with clean and semi-clean status in the
>> snf.  ie what density of  trace contaminants are allowed?  i tried to find
>> this information on the snf website but to no success.  i remember some of
>> these numbers being presented at a clean-tamination meeting last year.
>>
>> for instance, two questions have arisen recently concerning the savannah:
>> 1) clean wafer goes in...how can we verify that it is clean or semi-clean
>> coming out?  what number do we need to hit with TXRF or other methods.
>>
>> 2) a user can purchase W with "low alkali content" from a company.  they
>> promise <20ppm of alkalis in the W filament (most of the contamination is
>> likely K).  is that semi-clean?
>>
>> j
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100917/64195652/attachment.html>

From mtang at stanford.edu  Tue Sep 21 13:48:34 2010
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:48:34 -0700
Subject: [Fwd: QuSwami SpecMat request 9/21/10]
Message-ID: <4C991A22.40706@stanford.edu>

 From Attila, now at QuSwami.  Any concerns?

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	QuSwami SpecMat request 9/21/10
Date: 	Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:16:53 -0700
From: 	Attila Horvath <horvattila at gmail.com>
To: 	mtang at snf.stanford.edu



Dear SpecMat Committee,
 
We are planning to complete some processing steps at the Berkeley 
Marvell Lab on our wafers. Our entire process flow would start with some 
process steps here at SNF followed by some steps at Berkeley and back to 
SNF again. I met with Bill Flounders last week, we talked through our 
process plan, and we received a green light from him to proceed with the 
wafers that have gone through the initial process steps here at SNF. Now 
I turn to you asking for acceptance of our wafers processed at 
the Marvell Lab on the following equipments:
 
- P-5000 TEOS oxide deposition -- semi-clean (absolutely no gold or silver)
- Litho equipments (primeoven, svgcoat2, ksaligner, svgdev, bake oven) - 
no restrictions on materials (similar to SNF rules)
- HF dip - general wet bench using our own lab ware, or Msink8 (semi-clean)
- PR strip in Matrix - semi-clean
 
Following these process steps at Marvell we'd like to return to SNF and 
be accepted in the semi-clean category. Please let us know about your 
decision or possible concerns. We would like to start this pilot run at 
the Marvell Lab at the beginning of October.
 
Thank you and best regards,
Attila Horvath


-- 
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




From mtang at stanford.edu  Thu Sep 23 08:16:48 2010
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:16:48 -0700
Subject: [Fwd: QuSwami SpecMat request 9/21/10]
In-Reply-To: <4C991A22.40706@stanford.edu>
References: <4C991A22.40706@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4C9B6F60.9080806@stanford.edu>

Hi all --

I'll go ahead and OK this for Attila, unless there are any concerns?  
The semiclean tool he wants, by the way, is the Savannah ALD -- these 
are 4" wafers that he will perform a standard SNF clean on before 
processing.  Afterwards, they go into metal dep tools.

Mary

Mary Tang wrote:
> From Attila, now at QuSwami.  Any concerns?
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:     QuSwami SpecMat request 9/21/10
> Date:     Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:16:53 -0700
> From:     Attila Horvath <horvattila at gmail.com>
> To:     mtang at snf.stanford.edu
>
>
>
> Dear SpecMat Committee,
>
> We are planning to complete some processing steps at the Berkeley 
> Marvell Lab on our wafers. Our entire process flow would start with 
> some process steps here at SNF followed by some steps at Berkeley and 
> back to SNF again. I met with Bill Flounders last week, we talked 
> through our process plan, and we received a green light from him to 
> proceed with the wafers that have gone through the initial process 
> steps here at SNF. Now I turn to you asking for acceptance of our 
> wafers processed at the Marvell Lab on the following equipments:
>
> - P-5000 TEOS oxide deposition -- semi-clean (absolutely no gold or 
> silver)
> - Litho equipments (primeoven, svgcoat2, ksaligner, svgdev, bake oven) 
> - no restrictions on materials (similar to SNF rules)
> - HF dip - general wet bench using our own lab ware, or Msink8 
> (semi-clean)
> - PR strip in Matrix - semi-clean
>
> Following these process steps at Marvell we'd like to return to SNF 
> and be accepted in the semi-clean category. Please let us know about 
> your decision or possible concerns. We would like to start this pilot 
> run at the Marvell Lab at the beginning of October.
>
> Thank you and best regards,
> Attila Horvath
>
>


-- 
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



From edmyers at stanford.edu  Thu Sep 23 09:20:22 2010
From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers)
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:20:22 -0700
Subject: [Fwd: QuSwami SpecMat request 9/21/10]
In-Reply-To: <4C9B6F60.9080806@stanford.edu>
References: <4C991A22.40706@stanford.edu>
 <4C9B6F60.9080806@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20100923091933.02956298@stanford.edu>

All,

I am not as concerned about the contamination aspects but as to why 
they feel the need to move to Berkeley.

Ed


At 08:16 AM 9/23/2010, Mary Tang wrote:
>Hi all --
>
>I'll go ahead and OK this for Attila, unless there are any concerns?
>The semiclean tool he wants, by the way, is the Savannah ALD -- 
>these are 4" wafers that he will perform a standard SNF clean on 
>before processing.  Afterwards, they go into metal dep tools.
>
>Mary
>
>Mary Tang wrote:
>> From Attila, now at QuSwami.  Any concerns?
>>
>>-------- Original Message --------
>>Subject:     QuSwami SpecMat request 9/21/10
>>Date:     Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:16:53 -0700
>>From:     Attila Horvath <horvattila at gmail.com>
>>To:     mtang at snf.stanford.edu
>>
>>
>>
>>Dear SpecMat Committee,
>>
>>We are planning to complete some processing steps at the Berkeley 
>>Marvell Lab on our wafers. Our entire process flow would start with 
>>some process steps here at SNF followed by some steps at Berkeley 
>>and back to SNF again. I met with Bill Flounders last week, we 
>>talked through our process plan, and we received a green light from 
>>him to proceed with the wafers that have gone through the initial 
>>process steps here at SNF. Now I turn to you asking for acceptance 
>>of our wafers processed at the Marvell Lab on the following equipments:
>>
>>- P-5000 TEOS oxide deposition -- semi-clean (absolutely no gold or silver)
>>- Litho equipments (primeoven, svgcoat2, ksaligner, svgdev, bake 
>>oven) - no restrictions on materials (similar to SNF rules)
>>- HF dip - general wet bench using our own lab ware, or Msink8 (semi-clean)
>>- PR strip in Matrix - semi-clean
>>
>>Following these process steps at Marvell we'd like to return to SNF 
>>and be accepted in the semi-clean category. Please let us know 
>>about your decision or possible concerns. We would like to start 
>>this pilot run at the Marvell Lab at the beginning of October.
>>
>>Thank you and best regards,
>>Attila Horvath
>>
>
>
>--
>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




From mtang at stanford.edu  Thu Sep 23 09:39:58 2010
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:39:58 -0700
Subject: [Fwd: QuSwami SpecMat request 9/21/10]
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20100923091933.02956298@stanford.edu>
References: <4C991A22.40706@stanford.edu> <4C9B6F60.9080806@stanford.edu> <6.2.5.6.2.20100923091933.02956298@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4C9B82DE.3080202@stanford.edu>

Attila lives in Berkeley so wants to arrange the processing to minimize 
commuting.  And they need the Berkeley plasma TEOS for their process.

M

Ed Myers wrote:
> All,
>
> I am not as concerned about the contamination aspects but as to why 
> they feel the need to move to Berkeley.
>
> Ed
>
>
> At 08:16 AM 9/23/2010, Mary Tang wrote:
>> Hi all --
>>
>> I'll go ahead and OK this for Attila, unless there are any concerns?
>> The semiclean tool he wants, by the way, is the Savannah ALD -- these 
>> are 4" wafers that he will perform a standard SNF clean on before 
>> processing.  Afterwards, they go into metal dep tools.
>>
>> Mary
>>
>> Mary Tang wrote:
>>> From Attila, now at QuSwami.  Any concerns?
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject:     QuSwami SpecMat request 9/21/10
>>> Date:     Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:16:53 -0700
>>> From:     Attila Horvath <horvattila at gmail.com>
>>> To:     mtang at snf.stanford.edu
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear SpecMat Committee,
>>>
>>> We are planning to complete some processing steps at the Berkeley 
>>> Marvell Lab on our wafers. Our entire process flow would start with 
>>> some process steps here at SNF followed by some steps at Berkeley 
>>> and back to SNF again. I met with Bill Flounders last week, we 
>>> talked through our process plan, and we received a green light from 
>>> him to proceed with the wafers that have gone through the initial 
>>> process steps here at SNF. Now I turn to you asking for acceptance 
>>> of our wafers processed at the Marvell Lab on the following equipments:
>>>
>>> - P-5000 TEOS oxide deposition -- semi-clean (absolutely no gold or 
>>> silver)
>>> - Litho equipments (primeoven, svgcoat2, ksaligner, svgdev, bake 
>>> oven) - no restrictions on materials (similar to SNF rules)
>>> - HF dip - general wet bench using our own lab ware, or Msink8 
>>> (semi-clean)
>>> - PR strip in Matrix - semi-clean
>>>
>>> Following these process steps at Marvell we'd like to return to SNF 
>>> and be accepted in the semi-clean category. Please let us know about 
>>> your decision or possible concerns. We would like to start this 
>>> pilot run at the Marvell Lab at the beginning of October.
>>>
>>> Thank you and best regards,
>>> Attila Horvath
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> 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
>
>


-- 
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



From mtang at stanford.edu  Fri Sep 24 11:50:31 2010
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:50:31 -0700
Subject: [Fwd: Unity material/request for removal from gold contaminated status]
Message-ID: <4C9CF2F7.1060400@stanford.edu>

Hi all --

Have any of you spoken with Unity about this?  I did have an exchange 
with Lidia (which I will forward to you all shortly) which touched on 
this, but certainly didn't include any mention of ALD use or these other 
materials.

It's not clear to me exactly which steps they want to use ALD or 
P5000etch for.  Does anyone have more info?

Mary

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Unity material/request for removal from gold contaminated status
Date: 	Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:36:05 -0700
From: 	Lidia Vereen <lvereen at unitysemi.com>
Reply-To: 	<lvereen at unitysemi.com>
Organization: 	Unity Semiconductor Corporation
To: 	'Mary Tang' <mtang at stanford.edu>
CC: 	<efriend at unitysemi.com>, "'Mary Calarrudo'" <mcalarrudo at unitysemi.com>
References: 	<4C979995.8090105 at stanford.edu>



Mary,

Please find enclosed the presentation/data/request for Unity to be removed
from the gold contaminated list.  I do not have the specmat email address
and am hoping you can forward the email to that distribution.   Please let
me know if there are questions regarding the material and how long before we
can get resolution.

Thanks

Lidia




-- 
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100924/8133df99/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SNF Unity.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 412576 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100924/8133df99/attachment.pdf>

From mtang at stanford.edu  Fri Sep 24 11:51:42 2010
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 11:51:42 -0700
Subject: [Fwd: RE: Contamination control at SNF]
Message-ID: <4C9CF33E.6090508@stanford.edu>

The previous communication with Unity.  I'm not sure how this led into 
what I just forwarded to you all previously....

M

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	RE: Contamination control at SNF
Date: 	Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:18:05 -0700
From: 	Lidia Vereen <lvereen at unitysemi.com>
Reply-To: 	<lvereen at unitysemi.com>
Organization: 	Unity Semiconductor Corporation
To: 	'Mary Tang' <mtang at stanford.edu>, <efriend at unitysemi.com>
CC: 	'Mary Calarrudo' <mcalarrudo at unitysemi.com>
References: 	<4C7423E3.1030904 at stanford.edu>



Mary,

The oxide is deposited in your STS.  I am assuming that we do not need any
TXRF on the STS film.   The films that come outside of SNF are Pt and
conductive and insulating metal oxides.

Thanks

Lidia

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 12:56 PM
To: efriend at unitysemi.com
Cc: lvereen at unitysemi.com
Subject: Contamination control at SNF

Hi Elizabeth --

I just received your voicemail.  Lidia and I spoke this morning about 
your project.  Afterward, Jim McVittie (our etch and device expert) and 
I also spoke.

As I understand it, you have silicon wafers with platinum deposited at 
Unity.  The Pt is etched in the MRC system.  Afterwards, there is oxide 
deposited.  You want to be able to etch vias in this oxide down to the 
Pt below.  Is that correct? 

It would help to know that the Pt is deposited in a gold-free and 
iron-free system.  It is also helpful to know the metal-free quality of 
the deposited oxide (Jim advises this would be even more important to 
know than the Pt.)  A good, relatively easy demonstration would TXRF of 
those films.  But before you start running experiments, it would help to 
understand the process flow at these layers.  The thickness and method 
of deposition of these films would help.  Could we get a brief listing 
of process steps from you?

Thanks,

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





-- 
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100924/50104ad7/attachment.html>

From jprovine at stanford.edu  Mon Sep 27 06:19:03 2010
From: jprovine at stanford.edu (J Provine)
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 06:19:03 -0700
Subject: cleanliness/semi-cleanliness specifications
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=a=Vgg18T-XjO8C_mF9JF67L5jX1DWuqoXG3B_@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2530_1284526296_4C9050D7_2530_2865_1_AANLkTimHkQoEdXmhewnz4_NW8z+LM1fzDrhyuqpxrPH8@mail.gmail.com>
	<4C905C7A.2060507@stanford.edu>
	<AANLkTi=a=Vgg18T-XjO8C_mF9JF67L5jX1DWuqoXG3B_@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinwjA9W5xnga=KHB0U6uYUjNKTu2JnCkLRsqdaU@mail.gmail.com>

specmat,
based on a discussion with mary and the comparitive purity of SCT (close to
1000ppm) and gryphon targets to this <20ppm contaminated W, i am going to
allow it in the savannah ald and continue to classify the system and the
wafers coming out of it as semi-clean.

thank you,
j

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 8:52 AM, J Provine <jprovine at stanford.edu> wrote:

> thank you, mary.  is anyone else able to weigh in?
> i agree very much with mary about the need to stretch the contamination
> policy from its current state asap.  however, as is the case with the
> savannah ald there isn't much stretching happening with new tools because
> users invariably want to be able to take wafers to other tools.  if those
> other tools are mired in the old/current system then the new tools get
> funneled toward it as well.
>
> so, toward this line, let's look into receiving txrf data for films
> deposited in the savannah and compare that to control wafers to  determine
> cleanliness.  we can also compare to wafers coming from other classified
> machines and after coating different substrates (like the W w/ <20ppm K in
> question).  what was the process for the spectrum ald to be classified as
> clean?
>
> if we can make the ald more like litho (what goes in is what comes out), it
> would at least not show up as a new cleanliness issue.  this maybe too
> aggressive, but if it can bounce back and forth between clean and semiclean
> that would be a huge step forward.
>
> j
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Mary Tang <mtang at stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>>  Hi J --
>>
>> Excellent question, which is basically "how good is good?"  I'm no expert
>> and will defer to others on this committee who have more experience than I.
>>  However, I have tried to learn and have had long discussions, mostly with
>> Jim McV and Baylor Triplett about this.  Baylor once showed us a lot of data
>> from Intel, which spent a lot of time trying to figure this out.  Basically,
>> the data showed that you can think of contamination as a defect density --
>> then "good" or "bad" is based on the area and complexity of your device.
>>  Counterintuitively, this means if you are making only a few nanoscale
>> transistors (a few masks, devices a few microns in size) contamination is
>> much less of a problem than if you are making conventional CMOS chip.
>>
>> So, "good" is relative.  If you are making detectors, it's a different
>> answer than if you are making an EE412 chip or some nanotransistors.
>>
>> The criterion that I believe we've been using is a sort of "do no harm"
>> kind of approach.  Basically, if contaminant appears at or below the
>> detection level of the Evans TXRF system, then it's not considered a
>> problem.  That said, it is also important to consider the possible
>> contaminants.  At Evans, typically the sources used for TXRF are molybdenum
>> and tungsten.  The W source has better sensitivity to lower atomic weight
>> (like Fe) whereas the Mo source is better for higher atomic weights (like
>> Au.)  When in doubt, people run both -- although in many cases, it's a
>> matter of looking at the possible sources of contaminants and then looking
>> for them.  So, if it's a metal deposition system where a lot of gold is
>> deposited, Au should be one of the elements covered.  For the Evans systems,
>> the typical limit of detection of K is around 10^10 atoms per cm2.  If your
>> W has 20 ppm K and silicon is about 10^16 atoms/cm2, this is about 10^10
>> which strikes me as being at or around the limit of detection.  This may
>> very well be how they can promise <20 ppm of alkali metals.  Please
>> double-check these back-of-the-envelope numbers with Evans or other SpecMat
>> members.
>>
>> As for contamination, Jim always says "look for the mechanism of
>> transfer."  The best mechanism of transfer is shared chemicals at a wet
>> station.  Unless contamination is really gross, hard surfaces like wafer
>> chucks or quartzware do not typically transfer contamination very
>> effectively.  I suspect ALD will not have quite the range of concerns for
>> contamination transfer that other stations are scrutinized for.
>>
>> We've talked about stretching our contamination policy for years, but have
>> faced an uphill battle with the lab community on established tools.  It
>> should be a lot easier to establish different rules with new tools and a new
>> community of users.  With ALD, there is a lot of opportunity to stretch
>> these contamination definitions.
>>
>> Sorry, I don't think I answered your question but had a good rant.
>>
>> M
>>
>>
>> On 9/14/2010 9:51 PM, J Provine wrote:
>>
>>> hi specmat,
>>> what are the numbers associated with clean and semi-clean status in the
>>> snf.  ie what density of  trace contaminants are allowed?  i tried to find
>>> this information on the snf website but to no success.  i remember some of
>>> these numbers being presented at a clean-tamination meeting last year.
>>>
>>> for instance, two questions have arisen recently concerning the savannah:
>>> 1) clean wafer goes in...how can we verify that it is clean or semi-clean
>>> coming out?  what number do we need to hit with TXRF or other methods.
>>>
>>> 2) a user can purchase W with "low alkali content" from a company.  they
>>> promise <20ppm of alkalis in the W filament (most of the contamination is
>>> likely K).  is that semi-clean?
>>>
>>> j
>>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100927/bbb332f7/attachment.html>

From mtang at stanford.edu  Thu Sep 30 11:15:17 2010
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:15:17 -0700
Subject: [Fwd: RE: Unity material/request for removal from gold contaminated
 status]
Message-ID: <4CA4D3B5.3060505@stanford.edu>

Hi all --

Did I send this before?  Lidia would like an answer -- any thoughts?  It 
strikes me that all these are semiclean B by SNF definition, so should 
be OK for p5000etch and semiclean ALD.  What do you all think?

Mary
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	RE: Unity material/request for removal from gold contaminated 
status
Date: 	Fri, 24 Sep 2010 13:30:08 -0700
From: 	Lidia Vereen <lvereen at unitysemi.com>
Reply-To: 	<lvereen at unitysemi.com>
Organization: 	Unity Semiconductor Corporation
To: 	'Mary Tang' <mtang at stanford.edu>
CC: 	<efriend at unitysemi.com>, "'Mary Calarrudo'" <mcalarrudo at unitysemi.com>
References: 	<4C979995.8090105 at stanford.edu> 
<004101cb5c17$59c58070$0d508150$@com> <4C9D0711.8030204 at stanford.edu>



Mary,

1)  I have not been in contact with any other specmat members.
2)  The P5000 would be implemented for the Via etch and potentially the
hardmask etch.  We currently use the MRC.  The ALD is for the IMO (HfO2 or
ZrO2) deposition.  That is currently done prior to Stanford in our
facilities' deposition tool.
3)  The TXRF data for the oxide etch chambers comes from SVTC and the MxP
system.   We used that facility to do the same flow as we do at SNF.   The
data is from wafers that were processed subsequently to the via etch that
Unity does on their wafers.
4)  The Zr and Co come from the insulating and conduction metal oxides that
we deposit.  When we the do the oxide etches, those films are not exposed.
The only exposed material for the via etch is Pt.
5)  The glue layer is a thin titanium layer.

Thanks

Lidia

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu] 
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 1:16 PM
To: lvereen at unitysemi.com
Cc: efriend at unitysemi.com; 'Mary Calarrudo'
Subject: Re: Unity material/request for removal from gold contaminated
status

Hi Lidia --

Thanks for the info.  I take it this is follow up from a previous 
request we had for more detail about the process history of your wafers.

First, have you been in contact with other SpecMat members?  Because I 
may ask you the same questions....

- You mention using ALD and P5000etch.  It's not entirely clear to me at 
which steps in your process you would like to use these tools.  Or is it 
processing subsequent to what you've listed?

- I'm not sure I understand where the TXRF data for the oxide etch comes 
from -- is this from an SNF system or your system?  And how is the 
sample obtained?

- The presence of Zr, Co, Mn, Yttria weren't mentioned in our previous 
discussions.  How are these deposited and will any of these films be 
exposed during any of the proposed processing in non-Gold tools?

- What is the "glue" layer?

Thanks,

Mary




Lidia Vereen wrote:
> Mary,
>
> Please find enclosed the presentation/data/request for Unity to be removed
> from the gold contaminated list.  I do not have the specmat email address
> and am hoping you can forward the email to that distribution.   Please let
> me know if there are questions regarding the material and how long before
we
> can get resolution.
>
> Thanks
>
> Lidia
>
>   


-- 
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