That isn’t precisely what was decided in those cases, either (even though this gets repeated constantly on the internet as if it was). Again, the fundamental point of this case (and some similar cases) is just that you cannot assign IP to an AI. It has to be assigned to a person.

The ruling does not say whether or not the invention would be patentable had the appellant put his own name on the application.

You can't assign the copyright to Emacs either, yet it can be used to produce software.