HIGH PRODUCTIVITY FOR WELL IMPLANT APPLICATIONS

VARIAN MEDIUM CURRENT POSITION PAPER Rev. 1 (5-13-05)

Abstract - As devices have scaled below 100nm gate length, all transistor parametric implants such as deep and shallow well implants as well threshold control (Vt) implants have migrated to normal incidence implant. While the initial motivation was solely based on avoiding shadowing and increase packing density, other factors such as defect reduction and reduced process complexity are also becoming important factors. The architecture of the VIISta 810XE medium current implanter and VIISta 3000 high energy implanter provides the unique ability to cover the entire dose-energy requirements of the channel and well doping with true zero degree implants. In this paper we will illustrate how this capability can be leveraged to maximize the utilization of medium current and high-energy implanters and lower the overall cost of ownership. In addition, we describe the complete process transferability across the VIISta implanters with a case study of a typical CMOS recipe set.

I. INTRODUCTION The IC industry is now undertaking the aggressive adoption of deep sub-micron CMOS devices fabricated on 300mm wafers. Leading edge IC manufacturers are in high volume production on 300mm wafer production on the 130-150nm IC technology node, with 90-110nm and 65-70nm technology nodes following soon [1]. The traditional dose and energy requirements to meet the needs of these emerging applications are changing. There is a trend in reduced dose and energy requirements for the latest generation of devices. This is altering the applications space that was formally covered by high energy implantation. In the well applications area many of the implants that were formally covered by high energy implantation can now be readily handled by this new breed of medium current implanter.

As a new breed of medium current ion implanters are introduced and a paradigm shift occurs, the ability to extend the traditional operating range into the high energy operating space has been provided. The result of this extension in operation for medium current machines provides a high level of productivity for well implant applications. As well implant recipes move to medium current implanters the number of high energy implanters can be reduced. This also provides greater flexibility as a high energy implant back-up. The reduced operating costs of the medium current machine offer substantial benefits in terms of capital productivity [2].

The key challenges faced in delivering this additional capability fall into a number of categories. Extended energy range operation must be provided which guarantees robust performance for single charge boron up to 300 keV and double charge boron up to 600 keV. Also, robust performance for single charge phos up to 300 keV, double charge to 600 keV and triple charge to 900 keV. Long term stability in this extended operating range is critical to delivering reliable process performance.

Substantial increases in productivity must be provided in order for the migration of well implant recipes to medium current machines to make economic sense. Delivering increased productivity at a lower cost of ownership will be a key figure of merit.

The operation at higher power levels for well implant applications creates additional issues when photoresist wafers are utilized. The generation of an ion beam and its impact into photoresistmasked wafers will have an adverse effect on the vacuum of a medium current ion implanter. This is particularly significant when implanting with higher energies and higher beam current through thick photoresist. Compensation methods must be provided to deal with Rs shift due to photoresist outgassing. The ability to deliver a production-worthy solution to minimize Rs shift under varying recipe and photoresist conditions will be required.

There are some additional device fabrication challenges that have implications for equipment selection as well. For well and channel formation, device scaling is driving n+/p+ spacing, low doping concentration in the well/channel region and symmetrical well junction profiles. There are implications for high energy ion implanters (and medium current as well) where advanced devices can no longer tolerate shadowing effect and angle variation associated with a non-zero degree well implant [3]. These are requirements for well implant technology that will impact ion implanter architecture considerations. It is critical that the equipment be able to provide precise, zero degree implant capability to satisfy well implant requirements.

There are two major limitations of current well implant capabilities. The first is that increasing well concentrations results in new challenges. For smaller devices, substrate concentration needs to be increased to maintain adequate isolation characteristics. Also, increased well concentration results in increase junction leakage and junction capacitance.
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 .0

N +S / D t o P - W e l l

BV (V)

Low D ose H ig h D o s e

0 .1 0 .2 0 .3 N + - N W S p a c in g ( u m )

0 .4

N +/ P - W e l l j u n c t i o n l e a k
Frequency ( ) 2 .0 1 .0 0 .0 - 1 .0 - 2 .0 1 .E - 1 1
Low D ose H ig h D o s e

1 .E - 1 0 1 .E - 0 9 J u n c t io n L e a k ( A )

1 .E - 0 8

Figure 1 : Well concentration and junction leakage requirements.

There area additional limitations associated with tilted implants limiting device scaling. Tilted implantation degrades inter-well isolation due to shadowing. The impact is more severe with higher aspect ratios and thick photoresist.
P + Implantation (N-well)

1 8 B V 6 (V 4 2 0 -

Non-

Resist STI

Shadowe

Minimum Spacing

'encroachment'

B + Implantation (P-well)

0. 0. 0. N+-NW Spacing

0.

Resist STI

N
N+ PN-well

N
N+ P-well

NW
'shadowing'
Resist edge Resist edge
0 0.5

7 Degree Tilted Implant on Test Structure

Figure 2 : Limitations of tilted implant device scaling.

One of the issues associated with batch implanter technology is that true zero is not achievable. A batch system will experience angular variation that exceeds the critical angle. The systems must be run in quad mode at non-zero degree (~3-7 deg) to achieve desired uniformity. In this mode the batch system cannot deliver the benefits of true zero degree implants.

Cone Angle Beam

Beam

Batch Disk with Pedestals at Offset Angle (Cone Angle) Induces Tilt Angle Variation 4

Uniform, zero degree implant

Differential Channeling due to cone angle effect

Junction Depth

VIISta 3000HP

Batch HE System

1282.3 / 0.568%

1406.7 / 4.946%

Figure 3 : Cone angle effect on batch system implanter.

It is critical to provide a parallel beam with precise angle control to achieve a true zero degree implant. The precise control of the ion beam and beam parallelism will be required to maintain uniform distribution within the wafer as depicted in Figure 4 below.

B+, 200keV
R ( /sq.) 700
Sheet Resistance of N-well

VIISta 3000
395

Conventional Batch
415 410 405 400

650 600 10 9 8 7 6

400

Uniformity (%)

Conventional Batch
Breakdown Voltage (n+n-well=0.6m)
12V 13V 12V 11V

=1.8

=7.7

2.0 1.5 1.0 Parallel Beam 0.5 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Wafer Tilt (degree)

13V 12V 11V 10V

=0.6V

9V

=1.0V

Device Isolation Challenges for 65 nm Technology Node, Dr. Takashi Kuroi, et.al. Mitsubishi, Dec. 2002

Figure 4 : Precise control requirements in order to obtain uniform distribution within the wafer.

The critical angle is small for the higher energy implants such as the P 600 keV application outlined below. The critical angle being defined as the maximum angle variation to achieve a uniform channeled implant. As can be seen, the higher energy results in a smaller critical angle.

Z1Z 2e 2 Ndp c = k E

1/ 2

Where Z1, and Z2 are the atomic numbers of the incident ions and the target atoms respectively, e is the electronic charge, N is the density of target atoms, and dp is the separation between the planes of atoms that form the channel walls

Critical angle for P, 600keV = 0.5 deg.

Source: Robert Simonton and Al F. Tasch, Channeling Effects in Ion Implantation into Silicon, in ION IMPLNATATION: Science and Technology 6th Edition, 293-308

Figure 5 : Critical angle requirements for a typical well implant recipe.

As outlined in the angle control summary below the total angle variation for the batch systems will not meet the device requirements. The 1.5 degree disk is larger than the critical angle.
Total Angle Variation on High Energy Implanters - Batch vs. Single 4.0 3.5 Angle Variation [deg] 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0
Batch HE - Regular Batch HE w/ 1.5 deg VIISta 3000HP
Crystal Orientation Beam Divergence Beam Parallelism Mechanics Cone Angle

Figure 6 : The total angle variation on batch vs. single wafer systems.

Since the device fabrication requirements are becoming more challenging even a 0.5 degree angle variation has a significant impact on the well profile. The critical channeling angle becomes small as the energy increases. Even a small angle variation can cause ion de-channeling.

Critical angle for P, 600keV = 0.5 deg.

1050206020 Varian/J.Olson, slot 1, overlay
1E+18

0 deg
0.75 center 0.75 bottom 0.75 right 0.75 top 0.75 left 0.25 center 0.25 bottom 0.25 right 0.25 top 0.25 left

1E+17

1E+16

0.5 deg
1E+15 1E+14 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

DEPTH (Angstroms)

Angle Variation on a Typical Batch Implanter

Figure 7 : Angle variation requirements vs. batch system performance.

II. WELL IMPLANT APPLICATION SPACE There are an increasing number of well applications that will fall under the energy range and dose capability of medium current ion implantation as shown in Figure 8. The use of triple well architecture for most planar CMOS fabrication has necessitated the use of MeV implants for the n-tub that contains both the shallower n and p-wells. These MeV implants has been the major workhorse for cost effective substrate isolation schemes for both DRAM and Flash memory

manufacturing. Until recently, high energy ion implantation, unlike most of the low and medium dose applications, have used so called batch systems, where several (13-17 wafers) are loaded on to a disc that rotates at high speed during the ion implant process. The mechanics of wafer scanning through the ion beam and the design limitations inherent to this approach result in a variation of 1-1.5 across the wafer [3]. Due to this reason, conventional batch disc high-energy ion implanters are primarily dedicated to the somewhat angle insensitive deep triple wells, while the more sensitive threshold voltage, well, and pocket implants are all processed on the single wafer parallel beam system. The higher cost of high-energy ion implanter coupled with the limited process steps on these tools naturally has an adverse effect on the cost of ownership. For example, in a typical implant sequence for DRAM and flash memory only 2-3 steps are in the unique energy regime of high energy implanter (beyond the capability of medium current machine), while for most logic chip manufacturing this reduces to one. With the trend in reduction of energies for the next technology node it can be seen in Figure 9 that future well applications will fall within the extended operating range of the medium current implanter. The introduction of VIISta 3000HP single wafer implanter has thus for the first time enabled chip manufacturers to maximize the utilization of high-energy systems. Both the VIISta 3000 and VIISta 810XE implanters deliver a parallel, uniform ion beam across a 200 and 300mm wafer by employing a corrector magnet and high speed electrostatic ion beam scanning technologies with the details being reported elsewhere [4,5]. These features along with the patented Varian Positioning System allows for an angle control across the entire operational energy range. Identical dose control and glitch recovery mechanisms are used in these implanters and allows for complete transfer of implant processes across these machines for all critical layers. In addition, the single wafer architecture now enables high tilt pocket and halo implants (up to 60 tilt) to be processed on both the high energy and medium current implanters. As device geometries scale, required defect control in terms of elimination of foreign material has accelerated; both VIISta

3000 and VIISta 810 series of implanters demonstrate identical low levels of particle and metal contamination for all process steps. In addition, the common control system used on the VIISta platform allows identical interface of these tools to factory automation systems thus allowing for easy integration of implant process steps and process transferability.

D o p in g A p p lic a t io n s S p a c e 9 0 n m
1 .0 E + 1 7

1 .0 E + 1 6

90nm
B -G a p Eng.
G e, C , N

H /C S p a c e
G a te
B , P , G e, As

S /D
B , B F 2, P , A s

Dose (atoms/cm2)

M /C S p a c e H /E S p a c e

1 .0 E + 1 5

SD E E ng
B , B F 2, A s , C , X e, F , N , S b

C o n ta c t /P lu g
BF2, P

1 .0 E + 1 4

Is o la tio n H A L O /P o c k e t
B , B F 2 , P , A s , In
D /W e ll P

B, P,

1 .0 E + 1 3

C h a n n el E n g . B , P , B F 2 , A s , In , S b

T w in W e ll
B, P

1 .0 E + 1 2

CCD
B, P

1 .0 E + 1 1 0 .1 1 10 100 1000 10000

E n e rg y (k e V )

Figure 8 : An overview of the process applications space covered by high energy and medium current ion implantation.
Device Type Customer
Customer 1 Customer 2 Customer 3 Customer 4 Customer 5 Customer 6 Customer 7 Customer 8 Customer 9 Customer 10 Logic Logic Logic Logic Logic DRAM DRAM DRAM FLASH FLASH 500/2E13 650/5.2E13 600/4E12 500/4E13 600/4.6E13 800/1E12 500/2.5E13 500/2.5E13 600/5E12 700/7E13 175/2.5E13 360/1E14 420/1.4E13 300/3.5E13 305/1E14 400/2E13 260/1.5E13 260/1.5E13 420/2E13 360/1E13 1200/1E13 1500/5E13 1500/1.5E13 2000/2E13 1900/1E13 2000/2E13

n-well

p-w ell

deep-well

Falls w ithin curre nt e nergy range (B+ = 270 keV, P++ = 540 ke V) Falls w ithin VIISta 810XE exte nde d energy range option (B+ = 300 keV, P++ = 600 keV) W ill likely fall within VIISta 810XE ex tended ene rgy range option at next technology node

Figure 9 : A typical process recipe list for n-well and p-well applications and the relevant trends in reduced energies as the next technology node is approached.

10

III. PROCESS TRANSFERABILITY Process transferability between VIISta 3000 and 810 series of implanters are shown over the common energy range with Secondary Ion Mass Spectroscopy (SIMS) and four point probe measurements. Implants were conducted on crystalline n or p-type 300mm wafers either at normal incidence (referred to as 0 tilt) or at high tilt. SIMS measurements were conducted on as-implanted wafers, while these were annealed in a RTP system at 1100C; 10 seconds for four probe point measurements. Utilization of implanters and the advantages of process transferability were modeled for a typical flash memory and low power logic recipe set with a proprietary bay capacity model. IV. PROCESS RESULTS Figure 10 is a plot of SIMS profiles obtained from 3 points across the wafer (center, and +/- 3mm from the edges with all three points on a line corresponding to the fast scan direction) for a 540keV B+ implant at zero degree tilt angle on a VIISta 3000 and VIISta 810. The two major components of the dopant profiles are formed due to dechanneled and channeled ions. The relative populations of these peaks are dependent on the incident angle of the ion beam, as the beam incident angle deviates away from normal incidence, the relative population of channeled boron ions is reduced and that of dechanneled ions increases. These ratios substantially change as the incident angle is varied by as little as 0.2 degrees. The complete overlap of the SIMS profiles at all points across the wafer and between VIISta 810 and 3000 arise from the total control of incident angle in a closed-loop fashion. In contrast, for a traditional batch implanter typical angle variation of 1-1.5 degrees is reported and this precludes the implementation of true zero degree implants. In similar vein, SIMS profiles for a typical n-well implant are shown in Figure 11 [6]. Again for this zero degree phosphorus implant, the SIMS profiles are identical between the two implanters.

11

1E+18

Concentration (atoms/cm )

1E+17

1E+16

1E+15

1E+14 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Depth (microns) 2.0 2.5

Figure 10 : SIMS profiles of a B+, 540keV, 5E13cm-2 implanted at a nominal tilt of zero degree on VIISta 810 and VIISta 3000. Profiles are obtained at center and 3mm from the edge (left and right) for wafers processed on both implanters

1E+19

1E+18

Concentration (atoms/cc)

1E+17

1E+16

1E+15

1E+14 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Depth (um )

Figure 11 : SIMS profiles of a n-well implant (P+, 400keV, 1E13cm-2) implanted at a nominal tilt of zero degree on VIISta 810 and VIISta 3000. Profiles are obtained at center and 3mm from the edge (left and right) for wafers processed on both implanters

12

1.00E+19

1.00E+18

Concentration (atoms/cc)

1.00E+17

1.00E+16

1.00E+15

1.00E+14 0 100 200 300 Depth (nm) 400 500 600 700

Figure 12 : SIMS profiles of a high tilt implant (B+, 35keV, 2E13cm-2 at 30 degree tilt) on VIISta 810 and VIISta 3000 Profiles are obtained from three points at center left and right as in Figure 10

As already mentioned single wafer architecture enables high tilt implants employed in applications such as pocket and halo doping. In Figure 12, SIMS profiles obtained for a B+, 35keV at a 30 nominal implant angle from both VIISta 810 and VIISta 3000 are plotted. The dopant profiles produced by these implanters are identical, and thus demonstrate the ability to transfer these layers across these tools. In Table 1, sheet resistance values for some typical dechanneled, channeled, and high tilt implants are listed. These values are obtained without conducting a dose matching exercise between the machines. As can be seen from these values, the implanters are well matched and this arises from the architectural and dose control commonality designed into the VIISta platform.

13

Table 1: Sheet Resistance Values for Typical Implants Sheet Resistance (ohms/sq) VIISta 3000 B , 400keV, 5E13cm , 7/23 B+, 400keV, 5E13cm-2, 7/23 P+, 400keV, 1E14cm-2, 7/23 B+, 540keV, 3E13cm-2, 0/0 B+, 70keV, 3E13cm-2, 0/0 B+, 45keV, 2E13cm-2, 30/0 P+, 50keV, 1.5E13cm-2, 25/0
+ -2

VIISta 810 783 827 410 660 1148 2198 1420

780 829 406 665 1145 2200 1401

V. OPTIMIZING FOR PRODUCTIVITY The equivalent process performance of the VIISta 810 and VIISta 3000 allows for complete process transferability in the overlapping energy and dose regime. This range is 10-300keV for boron, 10-900keV for phosphorus/arsenic implantation and is determined by common productive regimes of these machines. For energies below 10keV, all medium and low dose applications are dedicated to the VIISta 810, while at higher energies such as up to 300keV for boron and 600 KeV for phosphorous, there are substantial throughput benefits when running recipes on a medium current machine. As can be seen in Figure 13 and Figure 14 there are major productivity gains realized in the B300 and P600 range with the VIISta 810XE operating at mechanical limit for the recipes shown. This represents a significant throughput advantage over traditional high energy machines. Also, compared to medium current machines which lack the extended energy range capability, there can be a 4X to 8X gain in productivity.

In addition, for double charge Boron (> 300 KeV) and triple charge Phos (> 600 keV), the VIISta 810XE system can provide reasonable throughput performance to provide high energy back-up capability.

14

300keV 3.5E13 Boron

450 400 350 Throughput (WPH) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Competitor HE System Competitor MC System VIISta 810XE

Figure 13: A productivity comparison between conventional HE or MC machines and the VIISta 810XE system for a Boron 300 keV P-Well implant.

600keV 1E13 Phos

450 400 350 Throughput (WPH) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Competitor HE System Competitor MC System VIISta 810XE

Figure 14: A productivity comparison between conventional HE or MC machines and the VIISta 810XE system for a Phos 600 keV N-Well implant.

15

V. DOSE COMPENSATION CAPABILITY There are additional challenges faced when running photoresist wafers under the recipe conditions referenced above. High energy impact of primary ions into the photoresist generates significantly higher levels of outgassing than implants performed at more traditional low energies (< 200 keV). Although this effect is intuitively obvious, it has significant ramifications for the design of a beam line, process chamber and compensation algorithms. In particular, it is critical that the control of photoresist outgassing be ensured to prevent undesired energy contamination, non-uniformity and dose shifts during implant.

The impact of photoresist outgassing on dose control performance is realized from the faraday reading not measuring the entire dopant flux. The degree of outgassing oscillates as the ion beam interacts with varying photoresist areas. This results in compromised dose uniformity. The VIISta 810XE product offers a unique dose compensation algorithm that controls dose shift (Rs shift) when operating under challenging conditions of photoresist wafers (see Figure 15) subjected to high powered beams.

P + + 5 0 0 k e V 5 E 1 3 V e r t ic a l D i a m e t e r S c a n B e a m C u rre n t - 5 2 0 p u A
1 .0 0 % 0 .5 0 % 0 .0 0 % -0 .5 0 % -1 .0 0 % -1 .5 0 % -2 .0 0 % -2 .5 0 % -3 .0 0 % -3 .5 0 % 0
B a r e W a fe r P R W a fe r D o s e C o m p O n

% Rs Shift

P R w a f e r , w ith 8 1 0 X E im p r o v eP R nW a fe r D o s e rC o m fp rO ff m e ts ba e w a e

10

20

30

4 0 P R w a fe r0 5

60

D ia m e te r S c a n - W a fe r M e a s u r e m e n t P o in ts

Figure 15: Dose compensation performance with photoresist for a P++ 500 keV, 5E13 recipe condition.

16

The VSEA approach to dose compensation provides a simple, well characterized method to compensate for photoresist outgassing. Since the technique involves the direct measurement of current, there is no need for experiments to derive the charge exchange cross section variables. There is also no requirement for real time pressure measurement which can be inherently unstable and subject to data corruption by system electrical disturbances. A one-time system characterization has been performed at the factory and is independent of species, dose and energy range. The compensation applied is insensitive to absolute pressure and photoresist conditions. The compensation algorithm (see Figure 16) is recipe selectable, allowing for flexibility in determining when the compensation shall be applied.

IB
Recipe Selectable Feature

Dose Control Algorithm

Determine Effective Dose Rate

Compensation parameters fixed

One-Time Characterization of System Requirements at VSEA Species Dose Energy Range

Figure 16 : A simplified overview of the Dose Compensation System algorithm utilized on the VIISta 810XE..

VI. HIGH ENERGY TO MEDIUM CURRENT PROCESS TRANSFERS In Figure 17, a typical allocation for a 300mm manufacturing facility with a combination of Flash and Logic devices is shown. The flash implant recipe set consists of 22 low and medium dose implants with only one implant that is in the exclusive process regime of the VIISta 3000, while other implants can be achieved either on the VIISta 3000 or VIISta 810, albeit with different productivity levels. A similar distribution of recipes also applies to the Logic manufacturing

17

process. In general, especially in the medium dose regime, the VIISta 810 provides better productivity with lower cost of ownership. The number of high-energy implanters required as the capacity is scaled from 1000 wafers/week to 6000 wafers/week remains constant. As the capacity is scaled upward, more and more implants are transferred to the lower cost medium current implanter. In all cases, the ability of VIISta 3000 to process all medium current implants enable the reduction in the number of medium current implanters required, while maintaining manufacturing redundancy by incorporating at least 2 implanters of a kind at all times in production. In addition to the direct benefits in reduced number of processing tools, there are also significant benefit and savings due to commonality of tool components, parts, and training. This ability to optimize two different processing tools naturally reduces initial capital outlay, overall cost of ownership, and increases manufacturing flexibility in the era of rapid changes due to market demand fluctuations.
9

VIISta 810 VIISta 3000

7
Total Number of Implanters Required

5
5

4
3

0 1K 2K 3K 4K 5K 6K
Wafer Starts per Week

Figure 17 : Model for number of medium current and high energy tool required as a function of wafer starts for a 50% logic/flash manufacturing. The bottom part of each bar shows the number of VIISta 3000s required. The top part of each bar shows the number of VIISta 810s required.

18

VI. CONCLUSIONS In this paper we have reviewed how the new breed of medium current VIISta 810XE implanter allows for transferability of recipes which were formerly considered as dedicated to high energy machines. A paradigm shift has occurred in the way in which traditional medium current and high energy recipes have been dedicated to their respective tool sets. There is now greater flexibility provided in selecting which tool set the high energy recipes can be run on. Specifically for twin well applications there are significant productivity gains which can be realized by employing this new strategy. The process flexibility in turn allows for maximum utilization of the implanters and a reduced capital investment requirement for a given fab capacity. There are also device fabrication requirements which should be considered when examining trade-offs between single wafer vs. batch ion implanters for well applications.

REFERENCES [1] ITRS Roadmap for Semiconductors 2002 http://public.itrs.net/files/2001itrs/home.htm [2] V. R. Chavva, S. Norasetthekul, Y. K. Kim, J. Flanagan, and N. Variam, Optimization of Well and Channel Implants for Maximum Productivity: Process Transferability of Low and Medium Dose Implants. [3] T. Yamashita, M. Kitazanwa, Y. Kawasaki, H. Takashino, T. Kuroi, Y. Inoue, M. Inuishi Advanced Retrograde Well Technology for 90-nm node Embedded SRAM by High Energy Parallel Beam, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics , Part 1, Vol.41, no.4B p.23999-403.. [4] J. C. Olson and A. Renau, Control of Channeling Uniformity for Advanced Applications, Proc. of 13th Int. Conf. on Ion Implantation Technology, Alpbach, Austria, October 2000: pp. 670-673. [5] J. Weeman, J. Olson, B. N. Guo, U. Jeong, G. C. Li, and S. Mehta, Precise Beam Incidence Angle Control on the VIISta 810HP, Proc. of 41th Int. Conf. on Ion Implantation Technology, Taos, New Mexico, September 2002: pp. 276-278. [6] N. Variam, S. Mehta, S. Norasethekul, and B. N. Guo, Seamless Transferability of Doping Processes between the VIISta Platform of Ion Implanters, Proc. of 14th Int. Conf. on Ion Implantation Technology, Taos, New Mexico, September 2002: pp. 1283-286.

19