MEMORANDUM

 

To:                   Professor Tsu-Jae King, Microlab Faculty Director

From:              Bill Flounders, Technology Manager

Subject:           2007 Year-End Report

Date:               18 January 2008

Cc:                  Katalin Voros, Microlab Operations Manager

 

I.              Introduction

This memorandum documents my major activities for the calendar year 2007. For the past year, I have continued two primary functions, planning for the CITRIS Nanofabrication Center (the planned successor facility to the Berkeley Microlab) and, technology support for the existing Microlab. Though design planning and construction review of the new lab have been on going for several years, 2007 was the first year in which my activities have begun to focus upon specific equipment and transitional plans for the Microlab move in its new home in the CITRIS building. Calendar year 2007 is the year during which the Microlab transition and migration has shifted from immanent to imminent!

I reiterate the following information from last year’s report and henceforth will only use the assigned names below for the CITRIS building and the new laboratory. At the CITRIS Research Symposium on December 14, 2006 the lead benefactors to CITRIS were publicly announced. The leadership private investors are: Dado and Maria Banatao (parents of 3 UC Berkeley graduates) Sehat Sutardja (EE ’85, ’88) and Weili Dai (CS ’84); and, Pantas Sutardja (EE ’83, ’85, ’88) and Ting Chuk (EE ’85). In recognition of their major investment and support of CITRIS: The CITRIS Headquarters Building will be Sutardja-Dai Hall. Thanks to the commitment and vision of the Sutardja and Dai families, cofounders of Marvell Semiconductor, the successor to the Berkeley Microlab will be the Marvell Nanofabrication Laboratory.

II.            Technology  Support  of  Existing  Laboratory

Ebeam Lithography

Calendar 2007 started with an exploratory visit by Crestec Corporation of Japan. Crestec was established in 1995 and has become an established supplier of electron beam writing systems. They have placed systems in over 30 national laboratories and universities and at over 45 commercial sites. However, they have yet to place a tool in North America. The President of Crestec, Mr. Hideyuki Ohyi, and Product Manager, Mr. Peter Wilshurst were visiting the United States to define a partner institution to showcase Crestec capabilities to the North American and US market. They found a receptive audience at UC Berkeley.

The Crestec flagship nanolithography system (the 9000 series) is not only a high performance tool capable of guaranteed writing of 10 nm line widths, it is also an extremely robust tool with a unique column enclosure enabling more realistic vibration, EMI and temperature specifications than many competitors, and a patented beam focusing strategy which enables very high dose with smallest spot size. The Crestec tool also provides a wide array of software features including absolute necessities such as multiple input file type conversion and proximity effect exposure dose adjustment routines. All review of the Crestec tool indicated it would be an excellent choice for a general use ebeam lithography tool in a multi user shared facility.

As important as the quality of Crestec’s tool was the willingness of Crestec to negotiate with the Berkeley Microlab. There was lengthy discussion between the Microlab and Crestec; in the end, it was a model of win-win negotiation. This was not simply an extended debate over acceptable pricing. Rather, it was an exploration of multiple combinations of purchase, lease and shared access that enabled both parties to define a solution compatible with their needs. After months of hard work, a purchase agreement was in place by the end of August. Berkeley sent an engineer to Japan for an on-site review and demonstration in December 2007 and the tool is due for delivery and install in February 2008.

Finally, the Crestec purchase was one of the finest examples of the shared laboratory culture that the Berkeley Microlab has been fostering for decades. Fifteen faculty representing three departments and two colleges contributed to the purchase of this tool. Contributions from a faculty at another UC campus were almost included. The confidential details of the Crestec purchase will not be disclosed in this broadly distributed public document; however, any Microlab Principal Investigator may contact me for more information.

Proposal Development

Process Review & Material Compatibility

I review at least weekly new material and process requests. Some highlights from the past year were: evaporation of indium arsenide for energy band pinning – alternate and much safer process offered was sputter deposition of indium antimonide. PZT sol gel deposition and curing – approved in non-MOS clean rapid thermal anneal tool. Chitin and chitosan processing. These are structural proteins being investigated as a novel IR sensitive MEMS layer.

I have noticed a growing number of process questions – especially by new BMLA members or the researchers of recently transferred faculty members – related to “what tool is needed for what process.” This reflects our growing lab membership and indicates the need for a more generic tool/process overview in the Microlab manual. Together with the process manager, I have begun to prepare tool table summaries that should enable lab members to quickly compare the many redundant tools offered within a process area and quickly compare them and understand the advantages of each. An example of this type of tool table for etch processing is presented in Table 1. This is an on going effort and will form the basis of the introductory process chapter for the Marvell Lab on-line manual.

Staffing

The Technology Manager continues to provide direct supervision of the BSAC Senior Development Engineer, Matt Wasilik. Matt has successfully taken on most BSAC specific tasks previously provided by the Technology Manager. A separate report describing his activities is included in the Microlab Annual Report. Highlights of his report are detailed use histories and failure analyses of the Centura and STS deep silicon etch tools; and, update on the MEMS test structures integrated with the Berkeley Microlab baseline chip.

I served on the interview committee for a second senior scientist for the Naofabrication Laboratory at the Molecular Foundry at LBL. Three exceptional candidates presented seminars, were interviewed, and received Berkeley Microlab overview/tours. This courtesy was extended by the Molecular Foundry Nanofabrication Laboratory Director, Professor Jeff Bokor. Ongoing coordination of the efforts at the Molecular Foundry and the Marvell Lab are insured by this type of interaction.

 

Table 1 – Microlab Etch Capabilities Plotted by Tool, Gases Available & Target Material


III.          New  Laboratory  Planning &  Design

Construction

Construction of Sutardja-Dai Hall, home of the Marvell Lab – successor to the Berkeley Microlab is within one year of scheduled completion! A live webcam of the construction site is available at http://www.citris-uc.org/capital_projects/webcam. As of this month, all concrete pours are completed except the roof and roof equipment pads of the laboratory. All superstructure, exterior walls, and glazing are complete. A majority of interior utilities are complete (sprinkler, electrical, HVAC, plumbing) and gyp board installation on all seven floors is scheduled for the first week of February. The tower crane is scheduled for removal during March 2008! To date, the scheduling and coordination provided by the general contractor have been exceptional. With respect to laboratory design issues, the general contractor has had a specific MEP coordinator (Marc Lesko) on site since the project was at the design stage. Marc provides immediate notification of any laboratory issues and has worked with me on an almost daily basis to find cost effective solutions that meet contractor requirements or restrictions while protecting the goals I have defined for the laboratory. Pending availability of the governor of California, the campus has scheduled our grand opening celebration for the second week of March, 2009.

Budget Issues & Fundraising

At the Microlab annual PI meeting in March 2007, Microlab management and faculty director announced the beginning of the Berkeley Microlab Futures Campaign. This is an independent fund raising effort led by two of the founders of the original Berkeley Microlab - Professor David Hodges and Professor Bill Oldham and two of the present champions of the Berkeley Microlab - former faculty director Professor Costas Spanos and present faculty directory Professor Tsu-Jae King Liu. Together with Microlab management, this group has developed a plan to call upon our greatest resource, the Berkeley Microlab alumni. The goal of this fund raising effort is to provide an operations budget that enables lab management to “bridge the gap” between phase out of the Berkeley Microlab and migration to and start up of the Marvell Lab.

The present operation has a well-tuned and well-balanced budget. There has been twenty years of balanced growth between membership needs and lab support, Figure 1. This growth has occurred while keeping the recharge rate constant except for inflation adjustment, Figure 1 inset. This single plot displays an amazing history of responsiveness to research need, balance between membership and resources, and efficient cost control. Now the Marvell Lab is expected to do the same.

 

During a start up and adjustment phase, the new operation will work toward a similar balance. The new operation will require a few additional staff, have larger consumable costs due to larger substrate size and will have larger infrastructure support costs due to the increased size of the facility. Many design decisions to date were specifically made to prevent these increases from being too drastic. The Marvell lab should be only an incrementally larger operation, not a quantum leap increase in cost. Corresponding gradual increases in number of faculty and number of company members - which can be readily accommodated in the larger facility - should offset these increased costs and keep recharge rates at an acceptable level.

The transition period is the primary time of concern. Laboratory management are tasked with keeping both operations running during the migration and start up period while encountering the largest single increase in materials and supplies needed for tool install and start up in the new lab. Figure 2 summarizes and estimates costs associated with this transition relative to the present operations budget.

During part of Spring semester and through Summer and Fall semesters, I worked with two Film Studies Department students to develop a fund raising video for the Marvell Lab. This video is for distribution to the select alumni of the Berkeley Microlab and is a one time request to generate funding to enable a smooth transition to and start up of the Marvell Lab. This video is available at: http://microlab.berkeley.edu/text/newlab.html

Marvell Lab Marketing & Equipment Donation Coordination

At the end of Spring semester 2007, the Microlab Technology Manager and Faculty Director were approached by Lam Research and asked to develop a one-day training course for non-technical employees at Lam. Lam has been experiencing significant growth in recent years and found they were employing many individuals who had limited or no familiarity with semiconductor processing and microfabrication. I developed a ½ day course entitled “A Day at the Lab; an Intro To Fab” to meet their request. Two classes of 20 participants each took the course, visited  the Berkeley Microlab, had lunch at the Faculty Club, and received a ‘gowned’ tour of the Berkeley Microlab. The material was very well received. The only concern was that tour of a University LABoratory built in 1983 did not give an accurate impression of a modern day FABrication facility. This concern was raised before the class was developed but Lam asked us to proceed. The future of this class is to be determined but some similar program presented at Lam’s facility followed by a tour of their own applications laboratory might be the next phase. Best relations with all our silicon valley semiconductor tool manufacturers is critical to the success of the Marvell Lab and this class provided a venue to remind many Lam executives that the new lab is counting on Lam for support. Lam Research Corporation has already provided two significant donations in the past year and negotiations are on-going for a more tangible presence in the Marvell Lab. The first was an upgrade of the controller system on our Lam 9400 polysilicon etcher. Second was coordinating donation of almost 2000 200 mm wafers. This is an extremely useful and cost saving resource for start up of our planned 200 mm operation in the new lab.

A leadership donation from Applied Materials (AMAT) was finalized during 2007. Initiated during 2006, and with significant coordination support from College of Engineering’s Director of Corporate and Foundation Relations, Barbara Blackford, AMAT finalized donation and support terms for two flagship tools for the Marvell Lab. An epi-SiGe deposition system and a gate stack dielectric growth and deposition system will provide an unparalleled tool foundation for the Berkeley device electronics group.  Thank you to AMAT for taking a leadership role in jumpstarting our new operation.

IV.          SUMMARY

Calendar 2007 was an excellent year for the Microlab and I consider it the first year of the Marvell Lab. We negotiated and made plans to accommodate a complex new nanolithography tool while at the same time we have begun planning for our complex migration and start up.

The Berkeley Microlab is a great facility and the years of operations and budget data available are an invaluable resource for guiding and directing my future operation. However, great things take time. Several years of design and planning are finally coming to fruition; multiple meetings over several years with many tool vendors are slowly yielding donation results, regular review and revision of hours of video footage produces a five minute video product. Construction of the new lab is not yet complete but planning for the operation of the facility has already begun.  Only with consistent and persistent management and planning will the new operation achieve success similar to its predecessor. I look forward to achieving that goal.