Post on 16-Jan-2022
Control of Pad Damage Control of Pad Damage Using Prober Operational Using Prober Operational
Parameters Parameters
June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007San Diego, CA USASan Diego, CA USA
Deborah MillerMicron Technology, Inc.
Jerry Broz, Ph.D.International Test Solutions
Edward Robinson, Ph.D.Hyphenated Systems, LLC.
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 222
OverviewOverview• Introduction / Background• Objectives • Materials and Methods• Results• Analysis / Discussion• Conclusions
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 333
IntroductionIntroduction• Probe card technologies have become advanced; however, the
basics of wafer sort really have not changed
• ALL probe technologies have a contact area substantially harder than the pads or solder balls of the device
• “Contact and slide” is CRITICAL to break surface oxide(s), but results in localized plastic deformation, i.e. a probe mark
• Volume of material displaced and/or transferred is a complex function of dynamic contact mechanics, metallic interactions, frictional effects, and other tribological properties
• Disclaimer: scrub mark photos, pad profiles, and pad structures shown in this presentation are not considered representative of or meant to infer anything about the process of record for Micron products.
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 444
Background Background –– Area EffectsArea EffectsPad damage due to probe has been positively correlated to bondability issues.– Reduced ball shear strength and wire pull strength– Increased NSOP (no stick on pad) and LBB (lifted ball bond)
Assembly Parameter vs. Probe Mark Area
% L
BB
Rej
ects
% N
SO
P R
ejec
ts
% AREA Pad Damage
Bal
l She
ar (g
ram
s)W
ire P
ull (
gram
s)
Sources …Tran, et al., ECTC -2000Tran, et al., SWTW-2000Langlois, et al, SWTW-2001Hotchkiss, et al., ECTC-2001Hothckiss, et al., IRPS-2001Among others …
Critical ValueDamage = 25%Ball Shear
Wire Pull
% LBB% NSOP
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 555
Area Effects Are Not Enough !Area Effects Are Not Enough !A probe mark can have a relatively small area of damage, but exceed the critical allowable depth.– % Area Damage = 8.8%
which is within limits– Depth = 10000Å which is
excessively deep
6000 Å aluminum + 5500 Å thermal oxide = 11000 Å
Probe Depth = 10000Å (punch-through)
Blanket aluminum wafer from IMSI SEMATECH
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 666
Background Background –– Depth EffectsDepth EffectsExcessively deep probe marks can cause …– Underlying layer damage (low-k dielectric, circuitry under bond
pads, and aluminum capped copper pads)– Bondability and long term reliability issues
Sources …Hartfield, et al, SWTW-2003Martens, et. al., SWTW-2003Hartfield, et al., SWTW-2004Stillman, et al., SWTW-2005Among others …
Many steps are needed to
assess cracks.
Images from Hartfield, et al, SWTW-2003
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 777
Background Background –– Height EffectsHeight EffectsPad material pile-up has also been correlated to bondability issues.– Reduced ball shear strength and wire pull strength– Increased NSOP (no stick on pad) and LBB (lifted ball bond)
Assembly Parameter vs. Aluminum Pile-Up
% L
BB
Rej
ects
% N
SO
P R
ejec
ts
Height of Pile - Up
Bal
l She
ar (g
ram
s)W
ire P
ull (
gram
s)
Sources …Langlois, et al, SWTW-2001Among others …
Ball ShearWire Pull
% LBB% NSOP
Critical Value“unknown”
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 888
Controlling the DamageControlling the Damage• The depth of the probe mark can be controlled with
modifications to the probe card technology– Low force probe cards (various manufacturers)– Optimized probe to pad interactions
• Probers can effectively change the z-stage motion just before contact and during overtravel to reduce damage– Variable Speed Probing by Accretech®
– Micro-Touch™ by Electroglas®
– Micro-Force™ Probing by Tokyo Electron Limited® (TEL)
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 999
Assessing the DamageAssessing the DamageTraditional depth, volume, and height measurements are time consuming and can have long cycle times.– Probing under different conditions– Wafers must be scrapped– Careful wafer sectioning– Sample preparation and de-processing– Electron-based microscopy
Probe Card + Wafer
• Touchdowns• Variable Conditions
Manual Failure Analysis
• Sectioning • Deprocessing• Electron Microscopy• Metrology / Correlation
Damage Assessment
Feedback to Production
Reporting
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 101010
Probe Mark 3D Cross SectionProbe Mark 3D Cross Section• From the wafer sort standpoint …
Displaced volume can be correlated to key sort parameters, e.g. z-stage speed, overtravel, probe force, cracking, punch-through, etc.
• From a cleaning standpoint …Displaced volume provides insight into accumulation rates and material
adherence.
Pad surface-100nm
-200nm-300nm
-400nm-500nm
PROBE MARK
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 111111
ObjectivesObjectives• Develop a multi-variable parametric DoE to identify
primary prober operational contributors to probe damage
• Perform a statistically valid and practical failure analysis on damaged bond pads without cross-sectioning or de-processing the wafers– 3D confocal, non-contact microscopy with a better than 50nm
resolution– Wafers must be available for follow-on metrology
• Identify an optimized combination of prober operational settings to reduce the overall area and volumetric probe damage, i.e. disturbed pad area
Can reasonable steps be taken with existing technologies (e.g., an existing probe card and a prober) to reduce pad damage in a cost-effective manner ?
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 121212
Factors Factors (Prober Operational Settings)(Prober Operational Settings)• Number of Touchdowns
Single vs. Double
• Overtravel MagnitudeLow (50um) vs. Middle (63um) vs. High (75um)
• Undertravel MagnitudeLow (0um) vs. Middle (10um) vs. High (20um)
• Pin-Update Execution– Abbreviated pin alignment to compensate for thermal movement – On vs. Off
• Wafer Chuck SpeedLow (6000 um/sec) vs. High (18000 um/sec)
• Chuck Revise Execution– Re-zero of the wafer chuck to compensate for thermal movement– On vs. Off
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 131313
Responses Responses (Probe Mark Features)(Probe Mark Features)
• Probe Mark Depth
• Pile-up Height
• Probe Mark – Area – Volume
• Pile-up– Area– Volume
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 141414
Touchdowns Undertravel Pin-Update Wafer Chuck Speed Chuck Revise OvertravelID1 Single Off On High Off 63
20 Single 10 Off High On 5017 Single 20 On High On 509 Single Off Off Low On 50
21 Single 10 Off High Off 6313 Single 20 Off Low Off 63
7 Single 10 On Low On 7512 Single 20 Off Low Off 7511 Single Off On Low Off 75
15 Double 10 On Low Off 5014 Double 20 Off Low Off 5023 Double Off On High Off 50
8 Double 10 On Low On 6319 Double 20 On High On 6310 Double Off Off Low On 63
24 Double 10 Off High Off 7518 Double 20 On High On 7516 Double Off Off High On 75
Design of Experiment (Design of Experiment (DoEDoE))Control
indicates a condition different than the CONTROL
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 151515
Materials and MethodsMaterials and Methods
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 161616
Wafer Sort ToolsWafer Sort Tools• Cantilevered probe card
Diagonal multi-site (X8) probe card representative of production.
• 25-wafer LOTPad Lot wafer representative of pad metal layer.
• Production Tester + Prober combinationTest cell with a “known good” condition.
• One operatorOperator variability kept to a minimum.
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 171717
Probe Mark Inspection LayoutProbe Mark Inspection Layout
Location A
Location B
Location C
Three touchdownsacross 200 mm wafer
Four pads of interest ineach site
Two sites of interestwithin each touchdown
“Split Probe” marks wereobserved AND included
in the dataset.
2
12
1
2
1
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 181818
Probe Mark MetrologyProbe Mark Metrology• Scrub mark volume and area• Pile up volume and area• Maximum depth
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 191919
Scrub Mark MeasurementScrub Mark Measurement
Threshold parameters set to determine the area
falling more than 100nm beneath average pad level.
Region ofInterest
Signal threshold reference level at the pad surface.
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 202020
PilePile--up Measurementup MeasurementSignal threshold reference level at the pad surface.
Region ofInterest
Threshold parameters set to determine the area
falling more than 200nm above average pad level.
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 212121
Depth MeasurementDepth MeasurementA cross-section tool is used to measure the probe depth.
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 222222
Test ResultsTest Results
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 232323
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
W16 W18 W24 W10 W08 W19 W14 W23 W15 W12 W07 W11 W21 W22 W13 W01 W09 W20 W17
Area Damage Volumetric Damage
Sorted by Pad Volume Damagem
icro
ns2
mic
rons
3
Pad Damage ParetoPad Damage Pareto
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 242424
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
W16 W18 W24 W10 W08 W19 W14 W23 W15 W12 W07 W11 W21 W22 W13 W01 W09 W20 W17
Area Damage Volumetric Damage
Sorted by Pad Volume Damagem
icro
ns2
mic
rons
3
PilePile--up Paretoup Pareto
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 252525
Maximum Scrub VolumeMaximum Scrub VolumeOne Way Analysis Variance of MAXIMUM Scrub Volume By Wafer
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Scru
b Vo
lum
e
1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Wafer
Each PairStudent's t0.05
Touchdowns Undertravel Pin-Update Wafer Chuck Speed Chuck Revise Overtravel24 Double 10 Off High Off 7518 Double 20 On High On 7516 Double Off Off High On 75
W16
W18
W24
StatisticallySignificant
Max Damage
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 262626
Touchdowns Undertravel Pin-Update Wafer Chuck Speed Chuck Revise Overtravel20 Single 10 Off High On 5017 Single 20 On High On 509 Single Off Off Low On 50
One Way Analysis of Variance of MINIMUM Scrub Volume By Wafer
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Scr
ub V
olum
e
1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Wafer
Each PairStudent's t0.05
Minimum Scrub VolumeMinimum Scrub Volume
W09
W17
W20
BorderlineStatisticallySignificant
Min Damage
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 272727
One way Analysis of MAXIMUM Scrub Area By Wafer
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Scru
b Ar
ea
1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Wafer
Each PairStudent's t0.05
Maximum Scrub AreaMaximum Scrub Area
Touchdowns Undertravel Pin-Update Wafer Chuck Speed Chuck Revise Overtravel24 Double 10 Off High Off 75
W024
StatisticallySignificant
Max Damage
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 282828
One Way Analysis of MINIMUM Scrub Area By Wafer
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Scru
b Ar
ea
1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Wafer
Each PairStudent's t0.05
Minimum Scrub AreaMinimum Scrub Area
Touchdowns Undertravel Pin-Update Wafer Chuck Speed Chuck Revise Overtravel20 Single 10 Off High On 5017 Single 20 On High On 509 Single Off Off Low On 50
W09
W17
W20
BorderlineStatisticallySignificant
Min Damage
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 292929
Analysis / DiscussionAnalysis / Discussion
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 303030
Response Mean (Scrub Area) Actual by Predicted Plot
50
100
150
200
250
300
Mea
n(S
crub
Area
) Act
ual
50 100 150 200 250 300Mean(Scrub Area) Predicted
P<.0001 RSq=0.99 RMSE=7.9659
Summary of Fit RSquare 0.992907RSquare Adj 0.981761Root Mean Square Error 7.965932Mean of Response 151.0761Observations (or Sum Wgts) 19
Response Mean (Scrub Volume) Actual by Predicted Plot
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Mea
n(S
crub
Volu
me)
Act
ual
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Mean(Scrub Volume) Predicted
P<.0001 RSq=1.00 RMSE=1.3295
Summary of Fit RSquare 0.998152RSquare Adj 0.995249Root Mean Square Error 1.329477Mean of Response 43.43426Observations (or Sum Wgts) 19
Scrub Mark Data Modeled in JMPScrub Mark Data Modeled in JMPActual vs. Predicted Results
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 313131
13.3180
1.6657
-1.1663
-0.9465
-0.7554
-0.6623
2.0472
-1.9320
1.0323
-0.0079
-12.4100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
ut[20]
ut[10]
cr[Off]
speed[Low]*cr[Off]
pu[Off]
speed[Low]
speed[Low]*ot[50]
ot[63]
speed[Low]*ot[63]
ot[50]
td[Double]
Significant Factor EstimatesSignificant Factor EstimatesProbe Mark Volume
Single vs. Double TouchdownMinimum vs. Maximum Overtravel
Primary Responses
Secondary Responses
No clear wafer chuck speed dependency was surprising.
Scaled Estimates
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 323232
1.6605
2.0336
2.7873
5.0350
5.4209
39.9630
-38.75266
-1.5891
-4.8920
-7.1279
-9.0581
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
ut[10]
ut[20]
cr[Off]
pu[Off]
speed[Low]*cr[Off]
speed[Low]*ot[63]
speed[Low]*ot[50]
ot[63]
speed[Low]
ot[50]
td[Double]
Significant Factor EstimatesSignificant Factor EstimatesProbe Mark Area
Single vs. Double TouchdownMinimum vs. Maximum Overtravel
Primary Responses
Secondary ResponsesA reduced dataset analysis showed that speed was the
third largest factor contributing to the
probe mark area response.
Scaled Estimates
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 333333
Correlation Between ResponsesCorrelation Between Responses
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
100
150
200
250
300
0.4
0.45
0.5
Mean(ScrubVolume)
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Mean(ScrubArea)
100 150 200 250 300
Mean(ScrubDepth)
.4 .45 .5
DoubleSingle
td
Scatterplot Matrix
• As expected, the probe mark scrub area and scrub volume showed statistically high correlations to each other
• The correlation between probe mark depth and volume was not statistically significant
• Possible reasons for lack of correlation to probe depth
– Small sample size effects– Operator-induced variability– Probe tip diameter– Probe gram force
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 343434
Response Mean (Pile Up Area) Actual by Predicted Plot
20
40
60
80
100
120
Mea
n(D
ivot
Area
) Act
ual
20 40 60 80 100 120Mean(Divot Area) Predicted
P=0.0009 RSq=0.96 RMSE=8.0552
Summary of Fit RSquare 0.957954RSquare Adj 0.891882Root Mean Square Error 8.055216Mean of Response 62.74199Observations (or Sum Wgts) 19
Response Mean (Pile Up Volume) Actual by Predicted Plot
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Mea
n(D
ivot
Volu
me)
Act
ual
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Mean(Divot Volume) Predicted
P=0.0012 RSq=0.95 RMSE=4.6836
Summary of Fit RSquare 0.954192RSquare Adj 0.882209Root Mean Square Error 4.683565Mean of Response 26.51567Observations (or Sum Wgts) 19
PilePile--up Data Modeled in JMPup Data Modeled in JMPActual vs. Predicted Results
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 353535
13.3180
1.6657
-1.1663
-0.9465
-0.7554
-0.6623
2.0472
-1.9320
1.0323
-0.0079
-12.4100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
ut[20]
ut[10]
cr[Off]
speed[Low]*cr[Off]
pu[Off]
speed[Low]
speed[Low]*ot[50]
ot[63]
speed[Low]*ot[63]
ot[50]
td[Double]
Significant Factor EstimatesSignificant Factor EstimatesPile-up Volume
Single vs. Double TouchdownMinimum vs. Maximum Overtravel
Primary Responses
Secondary ResponsesAdditional dataset analysis
showed that speed wasa contributing factor for
pile-up volume
Scaled Estimates
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 363636
1.3116
1.5082
1.8716
1.9195
1.9346
2.5774
20.6415
-4.4643
-11.6636
-1.4899
-0.4748
0 5 10 15 20 25
speed[Low]*ot[50]
speed[Low]*ot[63]
ot[63]
ut[10]
cr[Off]
pu[Off]
speed[Low]
speed[Low]*cr[Off]
ut[20]
ot[50]
td[Double]
Significant Factor EstimatesSignificant Factor EstimatesPile Up Area
Single vs. Double TouchdownMinimum vs. Maximum Overtravel
Primary Responses
Secondary Responses
No clear wafer chuck speed dependency was surprising.
Undertravel was a more significantcontributing factor than chuck speed.
Scaled Estimates
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 373737
Correlation Between ResponsesCorrelation Between Responses• Statistically significant
correlation between the primary responses (area and volume) was observed.
• Modeled data can be used to investigate optimal conditions.
2030
50
70
100
150
200
250
300
102030405060
40
60
80
100
120
Mean(ScrubVolume)
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Mean(ScrubArea)
100 150 200 250 300
Mean(DivotVolume)
10 20 30 40 50 60
Mean(DivotArea)
40 60 80 100 120
Scatterplot Matrix
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 383838
0
20
40
60
Mea
n(D
ivot
Vol
ume)
8.73
2232
±8.4
3241
3
Dou
ble
Sing
le
Singletd
Low
Hig
h
Highspeed
Off
On
Oncr
50 63 75
50ot
10 20 off
20ut
Off
On
Onpu
Off
50100150200250300
Mea
n(S
crub
Are
a)64
.055
95
±19.
7227
5
Dou
ble
Sin
gle
Singletd
Low
Hig
h
Lowspeed
Off
On
Offcr
50 63 7550ot
10 20 off
10ut
Off
On
Onpu
Best Case CombinationsBest Case Combinations• Modeled response data can be used to investigate the effects of
changing one parameter and keeping the other constant.– Slopes of the lines can give some indication of sensitivity to the change.
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 393939
Summary / ConclusionsSummary / Conclusions• Reasonable steps can be taken with “existing” hardware to
reduce pad damage in a cost-effective manner.
• Volumetric probe damage assessment can be used to optimize probe/pad interaction and reduce yield fallout.– Non-contact methods are critical for statistically valid and practical failure
analysis without de-processing and/or cross-sectioning.
• Even with the small sample size, the statistical power was adequate to give an indication for response sensitivity to primary process factors.
• The influence of second order factors for fine-tuning the operational parameters can be performed using modeled response data.
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 404040
FollowFollow--On WorkOn Work• Investigate improved height and depth measurements
– Larger sample size– Improved automated methods to reduce operator induced
variability
• Consider probe card parameters– Probe tip diameter– Probe gram force
• Validate test results using a secondary metrology evaluation
• Further assessment of the “optimized” operational parameter combination– CRES performance evaluation– Bondability testing
June 3-6, 2007June 3June 3--6, 20076, 2007 IEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test WorkshopIEEE SW Test Workshop 414141
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements• Chuck Jensen, Micron Technology, Inc.• Brett Crump, Micron Technology, Inc.• John Little, Hyphenated Systems, LLC