One form of optical proximity effect that further complicates lithography i
s the unexpected response of the printed image to small perturbations [crit
ical dimension (CD) errors] in the reticle. In this way mask CD errors are
actually magnified (they are reduced by less than the reduction factor of t
he optics) during the optical transfer to the wafer. This effect will requi
re even tighter specifications for mask CD control when the error magnifica
tion factor is significantly above unity. The effect is particularly pronou
nced for tight pitches of small features, but can also impact the printing
of small isolated lines. Both resist and optical nonideal responses are inv
olved in this mask error factor (MEF). This article discussed the optical e
ffects that produce the MEF. This article will show where the MEF due to op
tical effects can be ignored and where they cannot when using 248 nm lithog
raphy with a high numerical aperture (NA) tool. We will demonstrate how the
NA, partial coherence, and variations in focus can effect the mask error m
agnification factor. We will also show that resolution enhancement techniqu
es can be used to reduce the mask error magnification factor. In particular
, Levenson phase shift masks show particularly low mask error magnification
factors for small lines. Far some applications it should be possible to de
sign the mask so that the mask error magnification factor of the smallest f
eatures is significantly below unity. This would allow loosened reticle CD
specifications and/or better CD control of the lithography process. (C) 199
8 American Vacuum Society. [S0734-211X(98)06906-6].