1. Date of download: 7/7/2016 Copyright © 2016 SPIE. All rights reserved. Illumination geometry for vertical and horizontal lines, respectively. The illumination direction is defined by a vector (solid arrow) in the xz plane and the obliquity angle ϕ between this vector and the z axis. The dashed arrow indicates the direction of the zero diffraction order. Figure Legend: From: Mask diffraction analysis and optimization for extreme ultraviolet masks J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS. 2010;9(1):013005-013005-8. doi:10.1117/1.3302124

2. Date of download: 7/7/2016 Copyright © 2016 SPIE. All rights reserved. (a) Intensity and (b) phase of the electromagnetic field in the vicinity of a EUV mask: 30-nm-wide isolated vertical line, multilayer and substrate are replaced by vacuum. Note that the x axis is given on wafer scales, whereas mask scale sizes were used for the z axis. Other parameters are as specified in Table ; dark, low intensity; bright, high intensity. The white dashed line indicates the edge of the mask absorber. The lateral dimension is given wafer scale (4×system), see. Ref.. Figure Legend: From: Mask diffraction analysis and optimization for extreme ultraviolet masks J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS. 2010;9(1):013005-013005-8. doi:10.1117/1.3302124

3. Date of download: 7/7/2016 Copyright © 2016 SPIE. All rights reserved. Simulation of the diffraction performance of horizontal and vertical dense line spaces versus the pitch at a fixed 1:1 duty ratio. All other simulation parameters are as given in Table. (a) Diffraction efficiency of the zero, (b) the first diffraction order, and (c) phase difference between zero and the first diffraction order. Figure Legend: From: Mask diffraction analysis and optimization for extreme ultraviolet masks J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS. 2010;9(1):013005-013005-8. doi:10.1117/1.3302124

4. Date of download: 7/7/2016 Copyright © 2016 SPIE. All rights reserved. Cross sections and process windows of 32-nm horizontal/vertical lines/spaces with a pitch of 150nm. All other parameters are as given in Table. Figure Legend: From: Mask diffraction analysis and optimization for extreme ultraviolet masks J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS. 2010;9(1):013005-013005-8. doi:10.1117/1.3302124

5. Date of download: 7/7/2016 Copyright © 2016 SPIE. All rights reserved. Diffraction and imaging analysis of 32-nm-wide spaces with a pitch of 500nm: (a) phase difference with respect to zero order versus position of the diffraction order inside the pupil plane and (b) simulated spacewidths (cd, critical dimension) and feature placement versus defocus. The angles θx and θy specify the direction of the diffracted light with respect to the normal of the mask plane. Figure Legend: From: Mask diffraction analysis and optimization for extreme ultraviolet masks J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS. 2010;9(1):013005-013005-8. doi:10.1117/1.3302124

6. Date of download: 7/7/2016 Copyright © 2016 SPIE. All rights reserved. Diffraction and imaging analysis of 32-nm-wide lines with a pitch of 500nm: (a) phase difference with respect to zero order versus position of the diffraction order inside the pupil plane and (b) simulated linewidths (cd, critical dimension) and feature placement versus defocus. The angles θx and θy specify the direction of the diffracted light with respect to the normal of the mask plane. Figure Legend: From: Mask diffraction analysis and optimization for extreme ultraviolet masks J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS. 2010;9(1):013005-013005-8. doi:10.1117/1.3302124

7. Date of download: 7/7/2016 Copyright © 2016 SPIE. All rights reserved. Impact of mask absorber properties on the Zernike coefficients for the characterization of the rigorously simulated diffraction performance: (a) 32-nm lines with a pitch of 500nm and (b) 32-nm spaces with a pitch of 500nm. All other parameter settings as given in Table. Note the different scaling of the Zernike coefficients in the upper and lower row, respectively. All Zernike coefficients are given in units of wavelength. Figure Legend: From: Mask diffraction analysis and optimization for extreme ultraviolet masks J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS. 2010;9(1):013005-013005-8. doi:10.1117/1.3302124

8. Date of download: 7/7/2016 Copyright © 2016 SPIE. All rights reserved. Simulated impact of the absorber thickness on the placement error of horizontal lines and on the horizontal/vertical line bias—this is the difference between the linewidths of horizontal and vertical lines. Linewidth and placement errors are extracted at the best focus/threshold position of a process window with a depth of focus (DoF) of 50nm. All simulation parameters as given in Table. Figure Legend: From: Mask diffraction analysis and optimization for extreme ultraviolet masks J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS. 2010;9(1):013005-013005-8. doi:10.1117/1.3302124

9. Date of download: 7/7/2016 Copyright © 2016 SPIE. All rights reserved. Simulated impact of the refractive index of the absorber on the shift of the best focus with respect to its nominal position: (a) 32-nm lines with a pitch of 500nm, and (b) 32-nm spaces with a pitch of 500nm. The best focus position is extracted from a process window with a depth of focus (DoF) of 50nm. All simulation parameters as given in Table. Figure Legend: From: Mask diffraction analysis and optimization for extreme ultraviolet masks J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS. 2010;9(1):013005-013005-8. doi:10.1117/1.3302124

10. Date of download: 7/7/2016 Copyright © 2016 SPIE. All rights reserved. Simulated process windows of 32-nm horizontal and vertical semidense lines for different values of the refractive index of the absorber material. All simulation parameters as given in Table. Figure Legend: From: Mask diffraction analysis and optimization for extreme ultraviolet masks J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS. 2010;9(1):013005-013005-8. doi:10.1117/1.3302124

11. Date of download: 7/7/2016 Copyright © 2016 SPIE. All rights reserved. Impact of mask bias, incidence angle ϕ, and NA on the Zernike coefficients for the characterization of the rigorously simulated diffraction performance: (a) 32-nm lines with a pitch of 500nm and (b) 32-nm spaces with a pitch of 500nm. All other parameter settings as given in Table. Note the different scaling of the Zernike coefficients in (a) and (b), respectively. All Zernike coefficients are given in units of wavelength. Figure Legend: From: Mask diffraction analysis and optimization for extreme ultraviolet masks J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS. 2010;9(1):013005-013005-8. doi:10.1117/1.3302124

12. Date of download: 7/7/2016 Copyright © 2016 SPIE. All rights reserved. Process windows for a through pitch optimization of 22-nm horizontal lines, where the numbers in the figure legend specify the duty ratio: (a) result of an optimization for a chromium absorber with a fixed thickness of 80nm, and dose latitude at 100nm with DoF of 17.3%; and (b) result of the optimization for different absorber materials with a variable thickness, dose latitude at 100nm with a DoF of 22.0%. The best solution was obtained with a 46-nm-thick TaN absorber. Details on the other settings and on the optimization procedure are given in Ref.. Figure Legend: From: Mask diffraction analysis and optimization for extreme ultraviolet masks J. Micro/Nanolith. MEMS MOEMS. 2010;9(1):013005-013005-8. doi:10.1117/1.3302124