@BK Yes, and No.

Dynamic range is (by definition) the ratio of the greatest signal that can be properly recorded to the least signal that can be properly recorded. However, going beyond 12 bits in non-scientific-grade equipment is non-trivial. Most of the time the last couple of bits in your photos aren't valid. You've probably got 11-13 real bits (vs. noise or artifacts) depending on conditions for ISO 100. Any higher amplifier gain and you'll lose SNR - the noise floor increases but the cap does not - hence you lose dynamic range. Scientific-grade camera have active cooling elements called Peltier Coolers on them that keep the amplifiers well below freezing (or sometimes they are even used with a liquid nitrogen supply). Unfortunately, the power the Peltier cooler has to reject plus the power required to run it create a massive heat load that must be blown into the air. Can you imagine a yet-to-be-announced 5diii with a 6" heat sink hanging off to one side of it with a fan? It's not going to happen... However, scientific grade cameras can easily surpass 16 significant bits. I believe there are companies out there peddling 20 or 24-bit cameras. And such a camera is capable of an astounding dynamic range that would blow your SLR away. And they should for $250k - $1M apiece!

There's an old technology called CID (charged-injection device) elemtns vs. today's CCDs or CMOS sensors. In a CID camera you could saturate every pixel and it wouldn't bleed into the pixels around it. Furthermore, you could tell when this saturation happened according to a clock (and turn off the amplification to that pixel as a result). The neat thing about this is that your dynamic range is no longer limited by the bit depth of the sensor but rather on the clock you use. The astronomy guys loved these things. They could saturate the image of the stars in their field of view in a matter of seconds or minutes but leave the exposure on for hours and hours to get the background gasses, etc. I don't know why this technology fell by the wayside except that maybe the mass market for CCDs and CMOS sensors just makes inferior sensors so much cheaper it's not worth pursuing CIDs anymore.

As to ISO, increasing the dynamic range cannot equate to sensitivity. I didn't bother to read that PDF that was linked but ISO relates to saturating your sensor (100% white) or 50% gray or 19% gray at various light levels. Adding bits doesn't happen at the top end. So a 14 bit sensor and a 16 bit sensor might still be set so they max at the same exposure to the same light. The 16 bit sensor would just do a better job of distinguishing 1% gray from 1.01% gray.