Category Archives: LEDs

Making light of the small


January 1, 2007

Photonics and nanotechnology have a synergy rarely seen. But nano-optical devices are not prevalent in the marketplace, even though the academic labs churn out one breakthrough after another. So where’s the light?

By Richard Gaughan

Photonics and nanotechnology seem the perfect match. In fact, photons are inherently nanoscale entities, generally interacting with a single electron of a single atom.

But even though there seems a natural marriage between photons and nanomaterials, nano-optical devices are not yet prevalent. But the delay is not due to any fundamental scientific misunderstanding or technological failure, but is rather a reflection of the nature of technological development. In fact, a look at some of the nano-optical devices that are at or near commercial reality shows a predictable pattern of needs: tight integration, an existing market, a clear cost benefit and a scaleable solution.

Some examples of innovative photonic technology on the cusp of market acceptance are quantum dots, membrane deformable mirrors, and photonic bandgap fibers. Each of these technologies has distinct engineering challenges, and each has a distinct market, but together they provide insight into the types of challenges faced by most nano-optical technologies.

Quantum dots shine

The unique absorption and emission characteristics of quantum dots (QDs) were first demonstrated in the 1980s. A quantum dot is a semiconductor particle just a handful of nanometers in diameter. The QD creates a potential well that constrains the electrons within the semiconductor to specific energy levels dependent upon the material and the particle size.

The specific energy band structure determines the wavelength of photons that can be absorbed or emitted by the QD. In general, the absorption band is relatively broad, but the emission wavelength of a specific QD is narrow. In practice, this means different diameter quantum dots can be excited by the same illumination source, but each will emit at its unique wavelength.


By layering the proper blend of quantum dot diameters on top, these UV LEDs emit visible light with high conversion efficiency. Here Lauren Rowher of Sandia National Laboratory showcases a couple of different laboratory devices designed to pave the way to commercial development. Photo courtesy of Sandia National Lab
Click here to enlarge image

For example, QD labels treated with binding molecules will attach to specific molecular targets, so when a solution is illuminated with a single source the different labels emit light of a different color. The fluorescing quantum dots serve to make the otherwise invisible target molecules visible.

According to Steve Talbot, chief marketing officer at Evident Technologies, a Troy, N.Y., company that makes a variety of products based on quantum dots, QDs have rapidly infiltrated life science applications at least partly “because they are easily integrated with the existing technologies” – such as the surface binding methods and fluorescence readers prevalent in the marketplace.

The next target application for Evident Technologies is solid state lighting. Light emitting diodes (LEDs) are expected to be efficient replacements for current lighting technologies, for applications from decorative accent lighting to aircraft and automobile lighting – and eventually the general illumination marketplace. Different colors can be realized by designing devices of unique materials and customized semiconductor structures. But a more efficient solution may be to use bright UV LEDs to excite a phosphor layer which will absorb the UV and emit in its characteristic color.

Sounds like a perfect match for quantum dots, which absorb in a broad range in the UV and emit at a precise wavelength. QDs of different diameters can be integrated into a single phosphor layer, with the emitted light being a summation of all the different colors – including blends that can create white emission.


To produce LEDs with this range of color would usually require different semiconductor materials and different structures. But by coating a UV LED with quantum dots of different sizes, identical components emit different visible spectra. Photo courtesy of Evident Technologies
Click here to enlarge image

Conceptually that’s easy to understand, but to implement the LED QD nanophosphor requires success over a number of steps. Mike Locascio, Evident’s chief technical officer, identified a host of issues for LEDs. “For an LED to be successful,” he said, “it needs not only an exact color match and good color uniformity, but also a high color rendering index [a measure of white light quality], longevity, and high brightness, all at a competitive price point.”

Although the fundamentals of QD manufacturing are understood, to make them application-specific requires more than just a grasp of how large to make a QD core. The surface layer of the QD modifies the color, then an encapsulant provides both an interface between the LED and QDs and a matrix for deposition of the nanophosphor. And the entire assembly must survive a high temperature cure that will not degrade its environmental or performance capabilities. The application initiates a cascade of development steps. Complex, yes, but the challenges can be overcome: Evident is now shipping sample LEDs with integrated QD nanophosphors.

Adaptive optics for the masses

Adaptive optics refers to the capability to measure and control the shape of a propagating wavefront. Sensors provide input into a control system that generates signals to change the optical path length of a small part of the cross-section of an optical beam. A deformable mirror introduces wavefront changes by tilting and positioning small areas of the mirror surface.

One problem with traditional deformable mirrors is that they’re expensive. In the mid-1990s a MEMS deformable mirror was first demonstrated, constructed by assembling an electrode pattern surface parallel to a very thin reflective and conductive membrane. With a voltage pattern introduced on the electrodes, electrostatic attraction pulls the membrane into a desired shape, changing the wavefront of a beam reflected off its surface. Because of the advantages of scale offered by MEMS manufacturing, membrane deformable mirrors are much less expensive than traditionally-manufactured deformable mirrors, which brings the cost into range for mainstream projects.

Although the cost of continuous-membrane MEMS deformable mirrors is attractive, they had an operational restriction that was a bit cumbersome. Under certain conditions the membrane gets so close to the electrode that the electric field strength rapidly rises, forcing the membrane to come in contact with the electrode, leading to electrical discharge through the membrane, and catastrophic membrane failure.

AgilOptics, of Albuquerque, N.M., avoided this “snapdown” problem by restricting the usable voltage range, but that also limited the utility of the deformable mirror. The solution was acceptable, but not ideal; so development continued, and AgilOptics’ commercially-available membrane mirrors now have an insulating coating that retains its flexibility, but eliminates snapdown entirely.

Guiding the unguidable

In 1998 Yoel Fink and others at MIT reported on a class of reflective coatings that offered characteristics no other reflective coatings could match: angle-independent reflectivity over a wide range of wavelengths. By depositing alternating layers, a photonic crystal structure was created, with a bandgap that prohibited propagation for a range of wavelengths determined by the index of refraction of the two materials and their layer thickness.

Fink realized this principle could be applied to reflective surfaces along a waveguide of arbitrary shape to control the propagation of wavelengths that traditionally are difficult to guide. For example, a hollow core surrounded by alternating layers of materials of high index of refraction would be able to guide the 10.6 μm wavelength of CO2 lasers. Fink and his colleagues created a company called OmniGuide, in Cambridge, Mass., to commercialize applications of the photonic bandgap (PBG) fiber.


MEMS deformable mirrors are affordable enough to bring wavefront control to a variety of new applications. For example, this membrane mirror system stores up to 100 frames that can be played back continuously to simulate changes in atmospheric conditions. Photo courtesy of AgilOptics
Click here to enlarge image

But fabricating a laboratory scale device for academic research is quite different from manufacturing commercially significant quantities, and Fink was presented with the challenge of scaling the manufacturing. He needed a method that would control the thickness of each of the layers surrounding the core, yet still be able to produce large quantities of the PBG fiber. He was drawn to the drawdown process traditionally used to produce optical fiber: a macroscopic preform is fabricated, then heated and pulled into a long, thin strand. “Conceptually,” said Fink, “the difficult and tedious process of reducing feature size becomes straightforward with fiber drawdown, and the length can be kilometers.” But several challenges stood in the way of translating that concept into reality.

First, the feature sizes of the PBG fiber are one or two orders of magnitude smaller than those in traditional fiber – layers 100 nm thick instead of tens of microns. Second, rather than using the homogeneous glasses of traditional fiber, high-index semiconductors were needed. Finally, each of the multiple layers of the waveguide must be precisely controlled at a level well beyond that required for traditional fiber manufacturing. Those three challenges changed the project into a two-year, market-driven research effort.

The ideal market

Identifying the ideal market is like a “cutest baby” competition: it all depends on your perspective. Different technologies for different applications also have different criteria for what constitutes the ideal market opportunity. For the application of quantum dots for LED wavelength conversion, the ideal market has the potential for extremely high volume. Other technical solutions exist for generating a desired spectrum from solid state devices, but none is firmly entrenched. QD manufacturing technology is efficient enough to allow market entry at a competitive price point, and improvements in process control promise future cost reductions.

And, although the market for solid-state lighting is fair-sized already, the general illumination market holds huge potential. Evident Technologies’ Locascio noted that “market areas and subsegments within each area have their own set of challenges. We look at the price, performance, and packaging requirements to determine if quantum dots can provide an effective solution.”

For MEMS deformable mirror applications, the ideal application is either one in which a conventional optical instrument provides acceptable, but not optimum performance, or an application where wavefront control is being performed in much more expensive ways.

Dennis Mansell, president of AgilOptics, described the new Aeri atmospheric simulator the company has developed that can loop 100 frames to emulate rapid changes in optical transmission. “The system is highly capable, and several large customers are interested. But it’s a bit frustrating waiting for them to see the value.”

The ideal customer for Omniguide’s PBG fiber is one that has an important problem the technology can solve, and they’re willing to pay a premium for the solution. Whether the market is a relatively small number of customers willing to pay top dollar, a huge opportunity with smaller margins, or somewhere in between, each of these companies emphasizes the need to understand the customer’s requirements. The fundamental technology is already understood and the issue becomes one of tailoring the characteristics and the manufacturing process to meet the customer’s performance and price requirements.

Changing of the guard


January 1, 2007

Which Mr. Smith will go to Washington on nano’s behalf?

At a hearing last summer, Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) called nanotechnology the “next great global economic revolution.”

But Allen was defeated by Jim Webb in his Senate re-election bid, and regardless of whether nanotechnology fulfills Allen’s expectations, his enthusiasm will be hard to replace. At the state level, another prominent advocate of nanotechnology, New York Governor George Pataki, is leaving office and considering a run for the White House.

It is not clear yet who might replace them among nanotech’s leading government advocates – an especially acute concern given the decisions Congress makes about funding, the courts are making about patent law, and that regulatory agencies are making about product and materials development.

Click here to enlarge image

Who might step forward as the point man or woman for nano issues concerns Stephen Maebius, an attorney for intellectual property law firm Foley & Lardner in Washington, and a member of the NanoBusiness Alliance’s advisory board.

Oregon Senator Ron Wyden has compared the importance of nanotech commercialization to “nothing less than the equivalent of President Kennedy’s commitment of landing a man on the moon.” Photo courtesy of Senator Ron Wyden

Maebius says two members of Congress who could become the most visible on nanotech issues are Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas). Smith, says Maebius, is a strong supporter of nanotech and there is a cluster of nano-related companies in his district, which includes Austin.

“Wyden has been pretty strong in his support of nanotech from the start,” Maebius said. “I think he’ll continue in his support, and with the Democrats in power now, I think he’ll be influential in the Senate.”

Wyden has compared the importance of nanotech commercialization to “nothing less than the equivalent of President Kennedy’s commitment of landing a man on the moon.” Wyden is a co-chair of the Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus, founded in 2004 by Sen. Allen. Wyden’s caucus co-chairs include Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) and Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.).

Meanwhile, another “Smith” – Senator Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) – has criticized the lack of U.S. R&D funding for nanotechnology and could emerge alongside his Oregon compatriot as a leading voice. Smith is the author of the Nanoscience to Commercialization Institutes Act, which provides $24 million to establish eight nanoscience institutes around the country to help bridge the gap between research and commercialization.

Rounding out the mix is Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.), who supports development of a Nanomanufacturing Investment Corporation that would combine federal funds and private capital into a development fund administered by the Department of Commerce; and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) who last year introduced the Research Competitiveness Act, which creates a tax incentive for investment funds that back nanotechnology start-ups.

Among the states, Oregon’s Ted Kulongoski has emerged as a leading nano governor. In addition to voicing support for Wyden and Smith’s Congressional initiatives, Kulongoski led a team that raised $20 million in capital to fund ONAMI, the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute, and last year secured a $7 million appropriation from the Oregon legislature to support ONAMI. In Pennsylvania, Governor Ed Rendell committed more than $50 million in funds to the Pennsylvania Initiative for Nanotechnology.
– Richard Acello

A trio of new reports outlined safety procedures nanotechnology labs and companies are practicing now and what research nanotechnologists should investigate over the next 15 years to help alleviate concerns about its risks.

The first international survey of nanotechnology workplace safety practices, commissioned by the International Council on Nanotechnology (ICON), collected data this summer from 64 organizations in North America, the European Union, Asia and Australia – from some 337 that were invited to participate. Roughly 80 percent of respondents were private sector companies.

The researchers, based at the University of California, Santa Barbara, found companies and labs are developing special programs and procedures for mitigating risks to workers and consumers – but they also noted that these nanotechnologists were often using conventional environmental, health and safety (EHS) practices when handling nanomaterials, even though they generally believed they might pose special risks for workers.

“Any time you establish a baseline of where progress is, it’s useful. It allows you to do an update analysis next year to see how things are trending. Maybe next year it’ll find dramatically more folks have different controls in place,” NanoBusiness Alliance executive director Sean Murdock said. “I do wish there was a level of segmentation in the report that distinguished between companies in the research stage and manufacturing stage.”

“Industry is working hard to collaborate on how best to work with nanomaterials,” in groups such as the Nanotechnology Occupational Safety & Health Consortium, which includes Intel, DuPont, Procter & Gamble, Dow Chemical, the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science and the U.K. Health & Safety Executive, said Senior Analyst Michael Holman at Lux Research.

In another recent EHS-related publication – a commentary appearing in the November 16 Nature – a group led by Andrew Maynard of the Woodrow Wilson Institute Project for Emerging Nanotechnologies developed a basic framework for research addressing nanotech risks.

The commentary pointed at completing five grand challenges over the next 15 years. These included the development of instruments to assess environmental exposure to nanomaterials, methods to evaluate the toxicity of nanomaterials, models for predicting the potential health and environmental impact of new, engineered nanomaterials, ways of evaluating the health and environmental impact of nanomaterials across their life cycle, and strategic programs to enable risk-focused research.

“It’s a useful summary of a lot of people’s thinking on research priorities,” Holman said. “A prominent piece like that is useful as a clear concise statement of what’s needed that everyone can point to, as a spur to public policy.”

It’s not the only one, either. ICF International of Fairfax, Va., released an analysis of the U.S. federal government’s efforts to research the human health and environmental consequences of nanotechnology.

In its report, ICF provides 14 specific policy recommendations built around three components. The first entails identifying the research that can inform priority risk management decisions. The second addresses research management and offers recommendations for the completion of timely and policy-relevant research. The third component focuses on how research results can be used to support sound risk management decisions.
– Charles Q. Choi

(December 19, 2006) GLEN ALLEN, VA &#151 A report by NanoMarkets, LC, “Organic Electronics: A Market and Technology Assessment,” predicts the market for organic LEDs (OLEDs), transistors, and other organic-material electronics to reach $34.4B in 2014. The research firm cites several trends in the organic-electronics industry as indicators of commercialization.

Dec. 5, 2006 — Five Star Technologies of Cleveland has closed an investment round of $7.1 million dollars led by Morgenthaler Ventures. Other investors include CTTV Investments (ChevronTexaco), Early Stage Partners, Industrial Technology Ventures, and Reservoir Venture Partners.

Five Star Technologies is a supplier of high-performance inks and dispersions for use in electronics packaging and assembly operations. Using its patented Particle Management Technology, Five Star creates precision products that are intended to fill a missing link in the assembly of high-performance electronic components. Five Star dispersions of conductive, sub-micron and nanoscale particles offer stability and uniformity to help customers improve electrical and thermal performance.

Morgenthaler, CTTV Investments, Early Stage Partners, and Industrial Technology Ventures invested in the company in previous financings. Reservoir Venture Partners is a new investor.

(December 4, 2006) DORTMUND, Germany and SAN JOSE, CA &#151 NL Nanosemiconductor GmBH acquired Zia Laser, Inc., to advance quantum dot technology for IC and optoelectronics manufacture. The transaction closed with each company securing board and investor approval; financial terms were not disclosed.

by James Montgomery, News Editor

After months of pressure from domestic chipmakers, the Taiwan government says that by year’s end it will lower the restrictions for transferring process technologies to mainland China to 0.18-micron, from the current 0.25-micron level. But with a lot of unanswered questions about the specifics — and the government’s history of delays and silence in previous related policy moves — for now the decision seems to be as politically motivated as it is supportive of Taiwan’s technology competitiveness.

Days ago, Executive Secretary Huang Chin-tan of the Investment Commission under the Ministry of Economic Affairs (MOEA) told the Associated Press that a preliminary consensus has been reached with other ministries, leaning toward removing the ban on 0.18-micron process technology transfers, and approving long-delayed applications from ProMos and PowerChip applications, which had been refiled to petition for 0.18-micron processes.

Under the Wassenaar Agreement, Taiwan chipmakers are allowed to make chips outside the nation using 0.18-micron processing technology, but since 2002 Taiwan policy has restricted such investments in China to 0.25-micron, and any chipmakers applying for permission to move older 200mm sites must already have leading-edge 300mm fabs running at volume production in Taiwan for at least six months. So far, only TSMC has received the green light for such investments. Meanwhile, the Chinese chip industry is starting to get on its feet, led by flagship foundry Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. (SMIC), which has lured business from some customers of Taiwan rivals TSMC and UMC including Freescale, Qualcomm, Broadcom, and TI, according to the Taiwan Economic News.

The decision to relax chip technology transfers is welcome news to Taiwan’s chipmaking industry, but there’s still a glaring lack of details to be filled in, noted Rupert Hammond-Chambers, president of the US-Taiwan Business Council. “That raises a red flag for us,” he told WaferNEWS, noting that earlier in the year the government similarly relaxed restrictions to allow packaging and test companies to move operations over to the mainland — but nine months later the MOEA has yet to grant a single company license, or even disclose what the process requirements are.

“[The MOEA] will need to establish clear parameters” such as the size of a prospective investment into China (e.g., up to $X dollars, or X% of net worth), an area that is dictated by general Taiwan law but with some leeway, Hammond-Chambers explained. “That gauges how quickly [chipmakers] can ramp up, the facilities they can build, whether they can do it themselves or need a JV.”

TSMC has already started moving 0.18-micron-capable equipment over to its mainland facilities in anticipation of a policy change. By February, the government could approve similar moves for Powerchip and Promos, who theoretically could have equipment installed and lines running within a year or so. However, with those 0.18-micron lines still running at high utilization levels where they are now, strategically it would make more sense for Powerchip and Promos to pocket the transfer papers until demand slackens, then shut the lines down and move them to the mainland, Hammond-Chambers said.

Having TSMC and eventually Powerchip and Promos moving operations to the mainland opens up a world of possibilities for suppliers and subcons that cluster around them, he added, pointing to significant growth among mainland OEMs and ODMs.

Until more details emerge about the process and requirements, the decision likely has just as much to do with politics as chip industry competitiveness. “First and foremost, this will be a coup for the Taiwan government to overcome some opposition” led by the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), said Hammond-Chambers, pointing out that the TSU has already helped stave off other government-supported liberalization initiatives, particularly in technology areas. He added that the TSU likely will try and snag these chip technology transfers as well — particularly ahead of big changes coming next year to Taiwan’s parliament, which will shrink in half to 112 members and likely condense to a more moderate makeup, marginalizing groups like the TSU. “I think you’ll see a pretty concerted effort” from the Chen administration to smooth the 0.18-micron transfer process, he said. “[This administration] wants to prove they can deal with China, in sound businesslike manner.”

It’s also perhaps more than a coincidence that Taiwan’s representative to the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Vietnam was not president Chen Shui-bian — it was Morris Chang, TSMC chairman and outspoken Taiwan industry figure. “That’s an interesting timing,” mused Hammond-Chambers, who speculates there may have been a quid-pro-quo at work. — J.M.

November 27, 2006 – After three years of behind-the-curtain development and joint work with several customers and foundries, Clear Shape Technologies Inc. has officially launched with an announcement of two flagship products, and a DFM-aware IC design flow resulting from a collaboration with Taiwan foundry United Microelectronics Corp. (UMC).

Clear Shap, backed by $10 million in funding to date (from firms including USVP, Intel Capital, AsiaTech, and KT Ventures, KLA-Tencor’s investment arm), boasts a customer roster including UMC as well as NEC and Qualcomm, and says its technology is silicon-validated for the top three major foundries (TSMC, UMC, and the Chartered-IBM-Samsung partnership). Its management team includes a trio of top execs from Numerical Technologies, which was acquired by Synopsys: Atul Sharan (president and CEO), Yao-Ting Wang (chairman/CTO), and Fang-Cheng Chang (VP of engineering). Other top execs include Nishath Verghese, VP of engineering for design technology (he formerly led engineering for several Cadence units), and Nitin Deo, VP of marketing, business development, and international sales (from similar positions at Ponte and Magma).

“The foundation that was the basis for the contract between IC design and manufacturing has been shaken as ‘rule-based’ assumptions have steadily crumbled,” with chip performance and yield dramatically impacted by manufacturing variations, said Sharan, in a statement. For example, at 65nm, systematic variations of 3nm on a transistor gate can cause a 20% variation in delay and have a 2x impact on leakage power, the company notes. “There is a dire need for tools and technologies that reinstate designers’ confidence that their chips will achieve entitled performance and be manufacturable at high yields,” said Sharan.

Clear Shape’s first flagship product, InShape, utilizes a patent-pending, model-based, non-linear optical transformation algorithm to predict accurate silicon shapes for DFM hotspot detection of catastrophic failures and accurate eDFM analysis and optimization. The compact models encapsulate all necessary RET, OPC, mask, etch and lithography effects on both device and interconnect, and predict accurate contours for the entire chip from drawn layout in a matter of hours.

OutPerform is a silicon-correlated electrical DFM analysis and optimization product, to enable designers to optimize and control the impact of a variety of processes (lithography, mask, etch, RET, OPC, and CMP) on chip parameters. The product, which uses InShape’s silicon contour predictions for its eDFM analysis and optimization, also has a closed loop to manufacturing/foundries, the company says.

The DFM-driven IC design flow, developed over an 18-month collaboration with UMC, combines the InShape and OutPerform products with UMC technology files with encrypted DFM data to create a fast, accurate, model-based analysis and optimization approach. The tools “are welcome additions to our comprehensive DFM yield optimization offerings that now target 65nm designs,” stated Patrick Lin, chief SoC architect, system and architecture support at UMC, which expects to make the technologies available to customers later this year, with results fast enough to be used during place and route.

Using both the InShape and OutPerform tools, NEC Electronics was able to utilize our 90nm process technology much more aggressively and have a closed-loop solution to address parametric issues associated with variability,” according to Takaaki Kuwata, GM of advanced device development division, within NEC Electronics’ technology foundation development operations unit. In a statement, he added that the company expects to expand its work with Clear Shape to 65nm and 55nm designs.

Pricing for InShape and OutPerform starts at $300,000 (each), per master license, per year.

November 27, 2006 – AXT Inc., a manufacturer of compound semiconductor substrates, said that founder and CTO Morris Young would retire from his position by year’s end, although he will continue as a director.

After founding the company in 1986, Young held the CEO position for 15 years (1989-2004), and was chairman from 1998-2004, and has been CTO since 2005. He pioneered the vertical gradient freeze (VGF) technology used for producing lower defect compound semiconductors that generate lower defect materials, enabling the production of higher performance technology devices such as mobile phones, lasers, and LEDs. VGF has since become a key enabling technology for the gallium arsenide industry.

“Morris Young is a visionary technologist, a pioneer of the gallium arsenide industry and the person most responsible for the early growth and success of AXT,” stated AXT chairman Jesse Chen. “His experience and wisdom have been tremendous assets to the company. We are pleased that Dr. Young will continue to consult with AXT on matters as needed and intends to remain a member of the Board of Directors.”

AXT also provided an update on anticipated changes to its business in China relating to a new rule regarding value-added taxes (VAT) and custom duties. Release No. 82, which took effect in the PRC last week, modifies an earlier release (No. 139) regarding imposition of customs duties on, and a reduction or elimination of VAT refunds, for exports of gallium or arsenic, including certain shipments to AXT’s wholly owned subsidiary in China. However, the company says only a portion of its gallium transactions in China would be affected, and none of its local firms exports arsenic, so the company’s overall consolidated financial results will not be materially affected.

Veeco CEO Braun to step aside


November 27, 2006

November 27, 2006 – Edward Braun, chairman and CEO of Veeco Instruments Inc., plans to transition out of the CEO role during 2007. He will continue as CEO until a replacement is selected by a succession planning committee, led by independent director Roger McDaniel.

Braun took over as Veeco CEO in July, when Don Kania left to become president and CEO of FEI Co. Veeco said at the time it would not replace the president/COO position.

“The board and I believe it is appropriate for us to focus on CEO succession planning, and the separation of CEO and chairman positions will help Veeco achieve its potential growth to be a $1 billion company in the years to come,” said Braun, in a statement.