a&r template 4.4dom.semi.org/web/wstandards.nsf/a9007eac0de24c3e88… · web view(needs 2/3 or...

A&R Template 4.4

Procedural Review Voting Sheet

2012 Cycle 4

REGION: North America

COMMITTEE: HB-LED

EVENT: SEMICON West 2012

DATE OF MEETING: 7/12/2012

PLACE OF MEETING: San Francisco Marriot Marquis in San Francisco, CA

COMMITTEE CO-CHAIRS: Chris Moore (Semilab), Bill Quinn (Veeco), David Reid (Silian), Iain Black (Philips Lumileds)

SEMI STAFF: Michael Tran

A&R Voter: Name/Company

Date: 200X/MM/DD

I. Document Number & Title

Document #5265A

New Standard: Specifications for Sapphire Wafers Intended for Use for Manufacturing High Brightness-Light Emitting Diode Devices

II. Tally (Staff to fill in)

Voting Tally: As-cast tally after close of voting period

A minimum of 60% of the voting interests that have voting members within the technical committee must return votes. (Regulations ¶ 9.6.1)

Return

Distribution

Return Rate

Yellow

42

÷

68

=

61.8%

>=60%

Lilac & Others

12

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Vote

54

Reject

2

Accept

30

A&R

Not approved

Reason:

III. Rejects

Reject 1 - (Osram) Robert Handschuh

Negative 1 of Reject 1

Negative

Referenced Section

*TF/Committee to fill in if necessary

Reason

*Original negative comment and justification should be included.

For the Wafer ID the description of the uniqueness of the wafer ID is still missing. For automation reasons it's indispensable that each ID is unique, both for the IDs of each supplier and overall. Since the ID consist of a supplier specific part it's sufficient to ensure that each supplier creates unique IDs. This means there will not be 2 IDs that are identical.

Double IDs create problems to any MES.

Withdrawal

X

No withdrawal made

GO TO “Related” section

Withdrawal document received by staff on XXXX

GO TO “Final” ( (A)

Related

Motion and Reason

X

“Related” is mutually agreed upon.

*This motion can be appended to the motion for Persuasive (See Persuasive Section)

Persuasive

Motion and Reason

Negative is related and persuasive (needs over 1/3 votes to pass)

X

Negative is related and not persuasive (needs 2/3 or more votes to pass)

Reason

The negative will be addressed as an editorial change. The word “unique” will be added to clearly distinguish between vendors.

SEMI M12 does specify uniqueness and is referenced in Appendix 3.

Motion by/2nd by

Julie Chao (Silian)/Peter Wagner (Peter Wagner Consulting)

Discussion

· This point is addressed in paragraph 6.1 of SEMI M12, which is referenced in Appendix 3. However, it leaves the ambiguity of vendor designation.

· The wording can be improved with (see below proposed change in red):

· a unique vendor-assigned 8-character wafer identification code, followed by

· a 2-character vendor identification code.

· Jianzhong Jiao would like wording for rationale on how uniqueness is determined. Possibly including Winthrop Baylies’s (Baytech) table of calculation to be included in the document:

·

· A wafer task force vote was made to consider this non-technically persuasive under the following:

· SEMI M12 does specify uniqueness and is referenced in Appendix 3

· The word “unique” will be added to clearly distinguish between vendors.

· Rational or calculation of unique wafer counts can be added in future document revision.

Result of Vote (check ONE)

9-1. Motion passed.

[Negative is related and persuasive] > 1/3

GO TO “Final” ( (E)

[Negative is related and not persuasive] < 2/3

2/3=<[Negative is related and not persuasive] <90%

GO TO “Final” ( (C)

X

90% =< [Negative is related and not persuasive]

GO TO “Not Significant Finding Option”

Not Significant Finding Option

This option can only be used “if the committee finds a negative not persuasive by a vote equal to or greater than 90% of the persons voting on the action”. (Regulations ¶ 9.5.3.3.2)

X

It is mutually agreed upon to term the negative “not significant”

GO TO ( (D)

It is mutually agreed upon to term the negative “significant”

GO TO ( (C)

Motion

The negative is “not significant”.

Motion by/2nd by

Name (Company)/Name (Company)

Vote

XX-XX Motion passed with simple majority

GO TO ( (D)

XX-XX Motion failed with simple majority

GO TO ( (C)

Final

Negative is:

(A)

withdrawn (counted under h in disposition)

(B)

not related (counted under i in disposition)

(C)

related and not persuasive (significant)

X

(D)

not significant (counted under j in disposition)

(E)

related and persuasive

DOCUMENT FAILS

Comment generated. See comment #x

A&R

Not approved

Reason:


Negative

Referenced Section


Reason


Regarding the back surface roughness please adjust the range of values to 0.6 - 1.2, instead 0.8 - 1.2.

This will be in line with OSRAM's requirements.

Withdrawal

X

No withdrawal made




Related

Motion and Reason

X



Persuasive

Motion and Reason


X


Reason

· Task force reviewed the original survey’s ranges of backside roughness

· Document was set to 1.0±0.2um since Semicon Taiwan, Dresden (also in previous ballot proposal)

· A proposal was made to change the specification to ≤1.2um in the discussion. The target would need to be defined between the customer and the supplier. The roughness range within a wafer must also be specified

· A wafer task force vote was made to consider this non-technically persuasive:

· No formal technical justification was raised made at the time of the vote (although were discussed earlier)

· A few members voiced to move forward with releasing the document for publication for this cycle and revise the backside roughness specification for future revisions.

Motion by/2nd by


Discussion

None.


9-1. Motion passed.






X





X


GO TO ( (D)


GO TO ( (C)

Motion


Motion by/2nd by


Vote


GO TO ( (D)


GO TO ( (C)

Final

Negative is:

(A)


(B)


(C)


X

(D)


(E)


DOCUMENT FAILS


A&R

Not approved

Reason:

Reject 2 - (Osram) Jiao Jianzhong


Negative

Referenced Section


Reason


For the Wafer ID, the description of the uniqueness of the wafer ID is missing. For automation reasons it's indispensible that each ID is unique, both for the IDs of each supplier and overall. Since the ID consist of a supplier specific part it's sufficient to ensure that each supplier creates unique IDs. This means there will not be 2 IDs that are identical. This is not just a theoretical issue, but manifold experienced at OSRAM. Double IDs create trouble to any MES.

Withdrawal

X

No withdrawal made




Related

Motion and Reason

X



Persuasive

Motion and Reason


X


Reason

The negative will be addressed as an editorial change. The word “unique” will be added to clearly distinguish between vendors.

SEMI M12 does specify uniqueness and is referenced in Appendix 3.

Motion by/2nd by


Discussion

· This point is addressed in paragraph 6.1 of SEMI M12, which is referenced in Appendix 3. However, it leaves the ambiguity of vendor designation.

· The wording can be improved with (see below proposed change in red):

· a unique vendor-assigned 8-character wafer identification code, followed by

· a 2-character vendor identification code.

· Jianzhong Jiao would like wording for rationale on how uniqueness is determined.

· Possibly including Winthrop Baylies’s (Baytech) table of calculation to be included in the document:

·

· A wafer task force vote was made to consider this non-technically persuasive under the following:

· Rational or calculation of unique wafer counts can be added in future document revision.


9-1. Motion passed.






X





X


GO TO ( (D)


GO TO ( (C)

Motion


Motion by/2nd by


Vote


GO TO ( (D)


GO TO ( (C)

Final

Negative is:

(A)


(B)


(C)


X

(D)


(E)


DOCUMENT FAILS


A&R

Not approved

Reason:


Negative

Referenced Section


Reason


Regarding the back surface roughness, suggest the range of values to 0.6 - 1.2, instead 0.8 - 1.2. This will include all OSRAM's current specifications.

Withdrawal

X

No withdrawal made




Related

Motion and Reason

X



Persuasive

Motion and Reason


X


Reason

· Task force reviewed the original survey’s ranges of backside roughness

· Document was set to 1.0±0.2um since Semicon Taiwan, Dresden (also in previous ballot proposal)

· A proposal was made to change the specification to ≤1.2um in the discussion. The target would need to be defined between the customer and the supplier. The roughness range within a wafer must also be specified


· No formal technical justification was raised made at the time of the vote (although were discussed earlier)

· A few members voiced to move forward with releasing the document for publication for this cycle and revise the backside roughness specification for future revisions.

Motion by/2nd by

David Joyce (GT Advanced Technologies)/Jason Zapontis (Silian)

Discussion

None.


6-1. Motion passed.




X





Final

Negative is:

(A)


(B)


X

(C)


(D)


(E)


DOCUMENT FAILS


A&R

Not approved

Reason:


Negative

Referenced Section


Reason


In Table 1 and 2, the statement of "as specified in the purchase order or contract" is not part of specification as stated in the title of the Tables. Therefore such items shall not be included in the table. Separate Tables can be established to address the items "as specified in the purchase order or contract" as recommendation.

Withdrawal

X

No withdrawal made




Related

Motion and Reason

X



Persuasive

Motion and Reason


X


Reason

Separate tables is an editorial request and the existing format is compliant to SEMI procedural requirements.

Motion by/2nd by

David Joyce (GT Advanced Technologies)/ Jason Zapontis (Silian)

Discussion

· Jianzhong Jiao’s comment: “"as specified in the purchase order or contract" is not part of specification as stated in the title of the Tables. Therefore such items shall not be included in the table. Separate Tables can be established to address the items "as specified in the purchase order or contract" as recommendation.”

· During the April 2012 task force meeting, it was an action item for Jianzhong to work on the formatting and layout of the document

· Unfortunately, Jianzhong’s document was not received by task force co-chairs, Julie Chao (Silian), David Joyce (GTAT) for review and consideration before Document 5265 was released for ballot

· The majority of the task force voiced that this is not technically persuasive because it is editorial. The existing formatting complies to SEMI procedural standards.

· Murray Bullis confirmed Jianzhong’s format also complies to SEMI procedural standards


· Separate tables is an editorial request and the existing format is compliant to SEMI procedural requirements


8-1. Motion passed.




X





Final

Negative is:

(A)


(B)


X

(C)


(D)


(E)


DOCUMENT FAILS


A&R

Not approved

Reason:

Disposition of Reject 1 and 2 (both rejects from Osram)

5

Original number of Negatives

(g)

0

# of Negatives withdrawn

(h)

0

# of Negatives found not related

(i)

3

# of Negatives found not significant

(j)

Final

g-(h+i+j)=0

Reject is Not Valid and is not included in the denominator of § VI. Approval Conditions Check

X

g-(h+i+j)>0

Reject is included in the denominator of § VI. Approval Conditions Check

Reject without a Negative

Not Valid

Note: If all of the negative material included with a reject vote is withdrawn, determined to be not related, or determined to be not significant, the reject vote is not valid. (Regulations ¶ 9.4.3.3)

Reject 3 - Heehyuk Jang (ILJIN Display)


Negative

Referenced Section


Reason


This specification is too loose as about 70% properties as compared with commercial one in Korea. (Please refer to the attach file)

Especially, related to the orientation and flatness.

SEMI-DRAFT

4-6inch.pdf

Withdrawal

X

No withdrawal made




Related

Motion and Reason

X



Persuasive

Motion and Reason


X


Reason

The values suggested is a customer-specific requirement and the ranges are within the current standard with the exception of backside roughness and flat length.

Motion by/2nd by

David Joyce (GT Advanced Technologies)/ Jason Zapontis (Silian)

Discussion

· Heehyack Jang’s (Iljin) comment “This specification is too loose as about 70% properties as compared with commercial one in Korea. Especially, related to the orientation and flatness.”

· Julie Chao commented that the tighter specifications for flatness raised could have been for PSS. The document can be revised later on to distinguish between epi ready or wafers intended for PSS prior to epi.

· Jianzhong commented we cannot make a PSS assumption

· David Joyce commented that the 1.0mm edge exclusion is not internally consistent since the notch depth is 1.0 ±0.25mm.

· The wafer task force determined that the values suggested is a customer-specific requirement and the ranges are within the current standard with the exception of backside roughness and flat length


8-0. Motion passed.






X





X


GO TO ( (D)


GO TO ( (C)

Motion


Motion by/2nd by


Vote


GO TO ( (D)


GO TO ( (C)

Final

Negative is:

(A)


(B)


(C)


X

(D)


(E)


DOCUMENT FAILS


A&R

Not approved

Reason:

Disposition of Reject 3

1

Original number of Negatives

(g)

0

# of Negatives withdrawn

(h)

0

# of Negatives found not related

(i)

1

# of Negatives found not significant

(j)

Final

X

g-(h+i+j)=0

Reject is Not Valid and is not included in the denominator of § VI. Approval Conditions Check

g-(h+i+j)>0

Reject is included in the denominator of § VI. Approval Conditions Check

Reject without a Negative

Not Valid

A&R

Not approved

IV. Comments

Comment 1

Comment

Referenced Section


From

Rafael Vargas-Bernal (Instituto Tecnológico Superior de Irapuato)

Comment

Only for 5265A, a "dot" must be included at end of the paragraph in subsubsection 4.2.7.

Discussion

None.

Action proposed

X

The committee agreed to do one of the following actions.

*No motion is required in this step.

X

No further action was taken by the committee.

Refer to the task force for more consideration.

New Business

Other

A&R

Not approved

Reason:

Comment 2

Comment

Referenced Section


From

Bernd Schineller (AIXTRON SE)

Comment

- Certain types of Bernoulli-effect-based handling end effectors might have a problem with the diameter tolerances.

- for 100 mm: edge chamfer should be specified.

Discussion

None.

Action proposed

X



X



New Business

Other

A&R

Not approved

Reason:

Comment 3

Comment

Referenced Section


From

Christopher Lee (Corning)

Comment

I find it a bit confusing that in R2-4.6 the 5 point and 9 point thickness variation methods can be called TTV (TOTAL thickness variation) when they are thickness variation across 5 or 9 points instead of the entire wafer. In the past I had heard these referred to as TV5 and TV9. I had always understood TTV (or GBIR) as being the thickness variation across the entire surface of the wafer, requiring full surface measurement.

Discussion

None.

Action proposed

X



X



New Business

Other

A&R

Not approved

Reason:

Comment 4

Comment

Referenced Section


From

Roman Sappey (KLA-Tencor)

Comment

Back-surface bow in tables 1 and 2 is still an open spec, which I understand is reasonable given the practice of pre-bowed to compensate epi stress. But is does create room for uncertainty for e.g. wafer handlers, end effector designs in particular...

Discussion

None.

Action proposed

X



his step.

X



New Business

Other

A&R

Not approved

Reason:

Comment 5

Comment

Referenced Section


From

Andrew Kim (Philips)

Comment

Accept, conditional that the wafer marking is updated to allow for both front and back side markings.

Discussion

None.

Action proposed

X



X



New Business

Other

A&R

Not approved

Reason:

V. Summary of Editorial Changes

Note: Original section number and at least one full sentence are required in “FROM” and “TO” fields.

1

Proposed Change:

Add the word “unique” in Appendix 3, section A3-1.3, item #1 of ballot 5265A.

FROM: Section A3-1.3

1. a vendor-assigned 8-character wafer identification code, followed by

2. a 2-character vendor identification code.

TO: Section A3-1.3

3. a unique vendor-assigned 8-character wafer identification code, followed by

4. a 2-character vendor identification code.

Justification: (if necessary)

Editorial change proposed to clearly distinguish between vendors. SEMI M12 does specify uniqueness and is referenced in Appendix 3.

Motion

To approve the above editorial changes

Motion by/2nd by

David Joyce (GT Advanced Technologies)/Win Baylies (BayTech Group)

Discussion

Vote

10-1 Motion passed

A&R

Not approved

Reason:

VI. Approval Conditions Check

APPROVAL CONDITION 1: All negatives have been discussed and were withdrawn, found not related, or not persuasive. (Regulations ¶ 9.6.2)

APPROVAL CONDITION 2: At least 90% of the sum of the valid accept and reject votes must be accept. (Regulations ¶ 9.6.3)

Accepts

(Accepts +

Valid Rejects)

Approval Rate

=

30

/

31

=

96.8%

>=90%

Note: if both approval conditions are not satisfied, the document fails.

A&R

Not approved

Reason:

VII. Safety Check

See § 14 of the Regulations for further information

Motion:

X

This is not a Safety Document: when all safety-related information is removed, the document is still technically sound and complete.

This is a Safety Document: when all safety-related information is removed, the document is not technically sound and complete.

Safety Checklist (Regulations ¶ 14.3) is complete and has been included with the document throughout the balloting process.

Motion by/2nd by

David Joyce (GT Advanced Technologies)/Julie Chao (Silian)

Discussion

None.

Vote

11-0 Motion passed

A&R

Not approved

Reason:

VIII. Intellectual Property Check

Note: This ballot may be all or part of a Standard or Safety Guideline. This IP check applies to the entire Standard or Safety Guideline. See § 15 of the Regulations for further information

X

The meeting chair asked those present in person or by electronic link, if they were aware of any potentially material patented technology or copyrighted items* in the Standard or Guideline.

X

No potentially material patented technology or copyrighted items are known

GO TO SECTION IX

Potentially material patented technology or copyrighted items are known but a Letter of Assurance (LOA) or copyright release for such material has been obtained or presented to the committee.

GO TO SECTION IX

Potentially material patented technology or copyrighted items are known but an LOA or copyright release for some of the material(s) has NOT been obtained or presented to the committee

A&R

Not approved

Reason:

* Note: Such potentially material patented technology or copyrighted items might have become known since the Standard or Safety Guideline was last reviewed, or might become relevant due to this ballot.

IX. Action for this document

Motion

This document passed committee review as balloted and will be forwarded to the A&R for procedural review.

X

This document passed committee review with editorial changes and will be forwarded to the A&R for procedural review.

This document failed committee review and will be returned to the task force for rework.

This document failed committee review and work will be discontinued.

Motion by/2nd by

David Joyce (GT Advanced Technologies)/Win Baylies (BayTech Group)

Discussion

None.

Vote

10-1

Final Action

X

Motion passed

Motion failed

A&R

Approved

Not approved

Reason:

� EMBED Microsoft Office Excel Worksheet ��

� EMBED Microsoft Office Excel Worksheet ��

Return

Distribution

Return Rate

Yellow

42

÷

68

=

61.8%

>=60%

Lilac & Others

12

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Vote

54

Reject

2

Accept

30

Accepts

(Accepts +

Valid Rejects)

Approval Rate

=

30

/

31

=

96.8%

>=90%

_1404560459.pdf

_1404560902.xls

Sheet4

Sheet1

Accepts(Accepts + Valid Rejects)

Approval Rate=30/31=96.8%>=90%

Sheet2

Sheet3

_1404547309.xls

Sheet4

Sheet1

ReturnDistributionReturn Rate

Yellow42÷68=61.8%>=60%>=90%

Lilac & Others12

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Vote54

Reject2

Accept30

Sheet2

Sheet3

a&r template 4.4dom.semi.org/web/wstandards.nsf/a9007eac0de24c3e88… · web view(needs 2/3 or...

Documents