We will prove something slightly stronger that implies 2012rcampion's solution is corrrect.
Let $[x_n,y_n,x_{n-1},y_{n-1}, \dots, x_1,y_1,x_0]$ be the binary number $p$ given by $$\text{$x_n$ 0's , $y_n$ 1's , $x_{n-1}$ 0's , $y_{n-1}$ 1's , $\dots$ , $x_1$ 0's , $y_1$ 1's , $x_0$ 0's}$$
Then the numerator of the simplified fraction that is equal to the continued fraction$$[x_n;y_n,x_{n-1},y_{n-1}, \dots ,x_1,y_1]$$is precisely the number of distinct ways of writing an equality $p +q = r$, where $q$ and $r$ are never $1$ in the same binary digit and are always $0$ on every binary digit beyond $x_n$.
It should be clear how every solution as in the statement corresponds to a solution on the scale: $p$ is the weight of the coin, and $q, r$ provide the choice of weights on each pan of the balance.
Moreover, we assume without loss of generality that $x_n, y_n \geq 1$, except $x_0$ may be $0$. It can be easily seen the coin may not weigh $2^{2014}$, so the assumption is justified (its last bit must be $0$, and its first bit need not be $0$), and the weight of the coin can always be written as some $p$ in the statement. This also shows why we must consider, as 2012rcampion did, only fractions with $2015$ in the numerator that are greater than one.
The proof will be by induction.
In this case, $p$ is of the form$$\underbrace{00\dots 0}_{x_1}\underbrace{11\dots 1}_{y_1}\underbrace{00\dots 0}_{x_0}$$
Our reasoning will go as follows: we will analyze how the conditions on $q$ and $r$ shape a solution, going from the rightmost digit of $q$ and proceeding to the left. We will consider possibilities for $q$ that will automatically ensure the conditions on $q$ and $r=p+q$ are satisfied.
For any solution $(p,q,r)$, the fist $x_0$ digits of $q$ must be $0$, for otherwise condition that $q$ and $r$ not be $1$ in the same digit would be violated.
Now, we may choose any of the next $y_1$ digits of $q$ to be $1$, and this will create a domino effect of carry-overs, imposing that all other of these $y_1$ digits be $0$ (so as not to violate the digit condition). Of course, we may also choose to have all of these $y_1$ digits be $0$, and as in the preceding paragraph this will make it so that all of the next $x_1$ digits also be $0$.
We have thus found one solution (all zeroes) and $y_1$ 'partial' solutions, with a $1$ in one of the digits corresponding to $y_1$ and $0$ at the other digits. We need only find the possibilities for the last $x_1$ digits of the partial solutions. These last digits of the sum $p+q$ currently look like this:$$\underbrace{00\dots 0}_{x_1-1}1$$
We may choose to have the corresponding rightmost digit in $q$ be $0$, and this will impose that all other digits be also $0$; or we may choose it be $1$, and this will create a carry over. In this latter case, the new last digits of the sum have a very similar form:$$\underbrace{00\dots 0}_{x_1-2}1$$
Continuing in this fashion, we find there are $x_1$ fits to the $y_1$ partial solutions we initially encountered. These fits correspond to choosing one of the last $x_1$ digits and assigning $1$ to all digits that (strictly) precede it in the segment, and $0$ to all others. Notice in particular that the last digit will always be $0$, even when all others that precede it are $1$, because of the condition that binary digits beyond $x_n$ be $0$.
There are thus $x_1y_1 +1$ solutions. Now, consider the continued fraction of the statement. We have$$[x_1;y_1]=x_1+\frac{1}{y_1}=\frac{x_1y_1+1}{y_1},$$so the numerator of the corresponding simplified fraction is in agreement, as claimed.
- Inductive step: suppose the claim holds for all $m$ with $1 \leq m \leq n-1$ and let $p$ be given by $[x_n,y_n, \dots, x_1,y_1,x_0]$.
We will analyze the shape of the initial digits of $q$, like we did in the previous case. Its first $x_0$ digits need once again be $0$.
If we choose the next $y_1$ of its digits to be $0$, then the next $x_1$ of its digits will also have to be $0$, and we will have found one partial solution, complete until the digits that correspond to $y_2$.
Like before, we may also choose one of the $y_1$ digits to be $1$, and this will create a domino carry-over effect. Any of these $y_1$ choices will result in a sum that looks like this:$$\dots \underbrace{00\dots 0}_{x_2} \underbrace{11\dots 1}_{y_2}\underbrace{00\dots 0}_{x_1-1}1$$
As in the previous case, we may choose the rightmost digit in the segment to be $0$ or $1$, where choosing $0$ implies that all the next digits (until the $y_2$ segment) also be $0$, and choosing $1$ implies a new choice must be made for the next rightmost digit (with similar implications).
This results in $x_1-1$ fits that end in $0$ (so the next segment of $1$'s in $p+q$ has length $y_2$) and a single fit that ends in $1$ (so the next segment of $1$'s in $p+1$ has length $y_2+1$). We may group the former with our lone previous partial solution, for a total $y_1(x_1-1)+1$ partial solutions that need a fit for the binary number $[x_n,y_n, \dots, x_2,y_2]$, and $y_1$ partial solutions that need a fit for the binary number $[x_n,y_n, \dots, x_2,y_2+1]$.
We may apply the inductive hypothesis to these fits, but we will use some results on continued fractions. Consider the sequence of positive integers $(a_j)$ given by the $x_i$'s and $y_i$'s:
\begin{array}{ccccccccc}
x_n&y_n&x_{n-1}&y_n{-1}&\dots &x_2&y_2&x_1&y_1\\
a_0&a_1&a_2&a_3& \dots &a_{l}&a_{l+1}&a_{l+2}&a_{l+3}
\end{array}
Let $h_j$ and $k_j$ be the corresponding recursive sequences (see the link). Then we have that$$[x_n;y_n, \dots, x_2,y_2]=[a_0;a_1, \dots, a_l,a_{l+1}]\\
[x_n;y_n, \dots, x_2,y_2+1]=[a_0;a_1, \dots, a_l,a_{l+1}+1]=[a_0;a_1, \dots, a_l,a_{l+1},1]$$
Hence, by Theorems 1 and 2:$$[x_n;y_n, \dots, x_2,y_2]=\frac{h_{l+1}}{k_{l+1}}\\
[x_n;y_n, \dots, x_2,y_2+1]=\frac{h_{l+1}+h_l}{k_{l+1}+k_l}$$
By Corollary 1 and the Lemma at the end, these fractions are irreducible so we may apply the inductive hypothesis to the (binary) numbers $[x_n,y_n, \dots, x_2,y_2]$ and $[x_n,y_n, \dots, x_2,y_2+1]$, obtaining that the total number of solutions is:
\begin{align}&(x_1y_1-y_1+1)\cdot h_{l+1} + y_1 \cdot (h_{l+1}+h_l)\\
= \text{ } &(a_{l+2}a_{l+3}-a_{l+3}+1)\cdot h_{l+1} + a_{l+3} \cdot (h_{l+1}+h_l)\\
= \text{ } &(a_{l+2}a_{l+3}+1)\cdot h_{l+1} + a_{l+3} \cdot h_l\\
= \text{ } &a_{l+3}(a_{l+2}\cdot h_{l+1}+h_l)+h_{l+1}\\
= \text{ } &a_{l+3}\cdot h_{l+2} + h_{l+1}=h_{l+3}
\end{align}
On the other hand, $h_{l+3}$ is the numerator of the simplified fraction given by$$[x_n;y_n, \dots, x_1,y_1]=[a_0;a_1, \dots, a_{l+2},a_{l+3}]=\frac{h_{l+3}}{k_{l+3}},$$which completes the induction.
Lemma: The fraction $\frac{a \cdot h_{l+1}+h_l}{a \cdot k_{l+1}+k_l}$ is irreducible for all integers $a$ with $0 \leq a \leq a_{l+2}$.
Indeed, when $a=0$ we have $\frac{h_l}{k_l}$ and when $a=a_{l+2}$ we have $\frac{h_{l+2}}{k_{l+2}}$.
When $a$ is in between, it suffices to note that by construction of the sequences $(h_j)$ and $(k_j)$, $a \cdot h_{l+1}+h_l$ is precisely the numerator in the simplification of the continued fraction $[a_0;a_1, \dots, a_l,a_{l+1},a]$, and $a \cdot k_{l+1}+k_l$ is its denominator. Then, when $a\geq 2$ irreducibility follows from the fact that $\frac{1}{a}$ is irreducible, and when $a=1$ it follows from the fact that $[a_0;a_1, \dots, a_l,a_{l+1},a]=[a_0;a_1, \dots, a_l,a_{l+1}+1]$ (and in this case, $a_{l+1}+1\geq 2$, so $\frac{1}{a_{l+1}+1}$ is irreducible).
Notice the $a_j$ involved are all positive (only $a_{l+4}$ may be zero), so that none of the assumptions of the lemma lead to contradictions.
When I decided to try and tackle this problem, I had no idea it would be as hard and take as long as it did. I have no idea how you could see this relation between combinatorics of weightings and continued fractions, but I'm glad you did, because my other attempts were not at all feasible, involving recursion that was not very realistic to compute. Your hints were invaluable.
Still, I am very glad to have been shown this. It's one of those mathematical truths that bewilders me by how it unexpectedly relates two things that seem to have nothing at all in common, shedding light on some intricate underlying structure that has always been there, unmindful of whether or not we grasp it.