content_image/903168.jpg
The numerical value of"% by mass" shown in Table 6 is a value based on the entire solid content excluding the surfac› tant of the composition. Incidentally, the content of the sur› factant is 0.01 % by mass with respect with the entire solid content excluding the surfactant of the composition. 

A pattern formation was carried out in the same manner as for the alkali development/positive pattern except that the development was carried out by means of an organic devel› oper instead of the alkali developer using an exposing mask that inverted the pattern of the exposed mask, the develop- ment was carried out for 30 seconds instead of 60 seconds, and an organic rinsing liquid was used instead of pure water as the rinsing liquid. 

For each of the obtained positive-tone pattern and the nega› tive-tone pattern, the sensitivity, the pattern shape, the reso› lution, and DOF were evaluated by the evaluation methods described below. 

## [Sensitivity] 

Firstly the cross-sectional shape of a line and space pattern which has been obtained was observed by using a scanning electron microscope (S-4800 manufactured by Hitachi Ltd.). 

Then, the minimum irradiation energy when resolving a line with a line width of 50 nm was obtained and the value was set as "the sensitivity (mJ/cm 2 )". 

## [Pattern Shape] 

The cross-sectional shape of the 100 nm line pattern (line: space= 1: 1) at the irradiation dose giving the sensitivity above was observed by using a scanning electron microscope (S-4800, manufactured by Hitachi, Ltd.). Then, the shape thereof was evaluated in two stages of "rectangular" and "taper". 

## [Resolution] 

In the sensitivity obtained above, a minimum nm at which resolution could be made with line:space=l: 1 was observed by using a scanning electron microscope. 

## [Defocus Latitude (DOF)] 

For a 50 nm line pattern (line:space=l: 1), a 50 nm isolated line (line:space=l: 10), and a 50 nm isolated trench pattern, an acceptable range of focus variation was determined and a common focus variation width (µm) acceptable in all was determined. 

The evaluation results were shown in Table 5 and Table 6. 

<img src='content_image/903168.jpg'>

